archive-org.com » ORG » C » CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG

Total: 491

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • CA blog setup « Climate Audit
    Donate Widget enables the CA Tip Jar for payments through Paypal WordPress com Stats produces useful stats for the blog which are stored by wordpress com and not us WP phpmyadmin allows access to phpmydmin from within WordPress admin WP Tuner powerful blog performance analysis enables diagnosis of many performance issues Written by MrPete to help speed up CA Additionally I have configured two generic text widgets to do Google Search and Google AdSense functionality The code within the widgets is supplied by Google when you register for Adsense Give your comments here Like this Like Loading 16 Comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 00 PM Permalink Reply This is a test Some tried to use UBBC syntax in a comment It did not work and showed in the comment as i some text i Elsewhere WordPress refers to HTML XHTML which would be some text We will see which if either renders in comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 13 PM Permalink Reply The result is that HTML XHTML works and UBBC does not The acceptable formatting codes are listed on http en support wordpress com code The general difference is that UBBC codes are preceded by and ended by but HTML XHTML is preceded by less than symbol and ended by greater than symbol I hope this illustration renders WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 22 PM Permalink Reply By the way I can t find a Preview function under Post a Comment None of these comments are criticisms just suggestions ralph Posted Dec 13 2009 at 12 02 PM Permalink Reply Hey get this thing working I need to hear more about the warmth you have created WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Testing sub and sup codes that failed in a previous post of mine Admin please delete if sub and sup work Testing sub code This is a subscript Testing sup code This is a superscript WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Did not work WA777 Posted Jan 3 2010 at 2 24 PM Permalink Reply Ooops Re my posts of December 12 and 26 I should have read up on CA Assistant RTFM Sorry See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 03 AM Permalink Reply Happy new decade At least by my personal scientific counting method But I m not sure if it s a decade in which I shall be participating on ClimateAudit a lot Apart from it being much quicker than the old system everything else seems worse to me I have a 1024 pixel width screen and the top of many articles is now unreadable as the left sidebar enroaches across it The use of subthreads within articles makes it harder to come along and browse at the recent action The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible I may now have to bookmark articles because I can t rely on them remaining accessible at the right sidebar I preferred the old style straight numbering system but that s just a WIBNI I note that WUWT does not seem to suffer from the same problems so I would guess that they can be fixed with some effort Until then that is probably where I shall graze with an occasional look in here Rich Steve I dislike the threading as well And you re right that Anthony has turned this off and so we should be able to as well See owe to Rich Posted Jan 2 2010 at 7 08 AM Permalink Reply P P S My son s laptop has 1280 pixel width and Firefox and I ve tried out the CA Assistant on it So I may have to start bumping him off it in order to browse CA Steve thanks for your comment re the threading Rich See owe to Rich Posted Aug 1 2010 at 7 52 PM Permalink Reply I d like to reiterate the following from above The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible This problem does not seem to occur at WUWT so I presume there must be some way of fixing it It must be making CA a less busy site because for example a few hours after I posted http climateaudit org 2010 06 15 unthreaded 39 comment 237282 it was not under the Recent Comments so not that many people will have read it especially in the UK where it is night time now Rich See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 12 AM Permalink Reply P S I just followed the link to CA Assistant As it can apparently sort the threads this would help with one of my complaints However I do not have Firefox on this computer and as I m challenged for disk space I might have to remove something to install it Trouble is I keep downloading interesting Global Warming PDFs that I come across and Windows Update adds junk which takes effort to clear out but anyway that s my problem Rich Terry Kette Posted Jan 17 2010 at 5 28 PM Permalink Reply ANY HVAC GUYS HERE Just for the sake of argument let s assume the Earth surface temp did rise 0 5 C Dry Bulb If the wet bulb temperature remained the same the HEAT J gm dry air or BTU LB dry air DID NOT RISE In other words no heat was added Only the sensible heat rose the latent heat fell Sensible heat latent heat total enthalpy of the air Voila no warming As I understand

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/ca-blog-setup/?replytocom=214113 (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive


  • CA blog setup « Climate Audit
    Donate Widget enables the CA Tip Jar for payments through Paypal WordPress com Stats produces useful stats for the blog which are stored by wordpress com and not us WP phpmyadmin allows access to phpmydmin from within WordPress admin WP Tuner powerful blog performance analysis enables diagnosis of many performance issues Written by MrPete to help speed up CA Additionally I have configured two generic text widgets to do Google Search and Google AdSense functionality The code within the widgets is supplied by Google when you register for Adsense Give your comments here Like this Like Loading 16 Comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 00 PM Permalink Reply This is a test Some tried to use UBBC syntax in a comment It did not work and showed in the comment as i some text i Elsewhere WordPress refers to HTML XHTML which would be some text We will see which if either renders in comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 13 PM Permalink Reply The result is that HTML XHTML works and UBBC does not The acceptable formatting codes are listed on http en support wordpress com code The general difference is that UBBC codes are preceded by and ended by but HTML XHTML is preceded by less than symbol and ended by greater than symbol I hope this illustration renders WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 22 PM Permalink Reply By the way I can t find a Preview function under Post a Comment None of these comments are criticisms just suggestions ralph Posted Dec 13 2009 at 12 02 PM Permalink Reply Hey get this thing working I need to hear more about the warmth you have created WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Testing sub and sup codes that failed in a previous post of mine Admin please delete if sub and sup work Testing sub code This is a subscript Testing sup code This is a superscript WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Did not work WA777 Posted Jan 3 2010 at 2 24 PM Permalink Reply Ooops Re my posts of December 12 and 26 I should have read up on CA Assistant RTFM Sorry See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 03 AM Permalink Reply Happy new decade At least by my personal scientific counting method But I m not sure if it s a decade in which I shall be participating on ClimateAudit a lot Apart from it being much quicker than the old system everything else seems worse to me I have a 1024 pixel width screen and the top of many articles is now unreadable as the left sidebar enroaches across it The use of subthreads within articles makes it harder to come along and browse at the recent action The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible I may now have to bookmark articles because I can t rely on them remaining accessible at the right sidebar I preferred the old style straight numbering system but that s just a WIBNI I note that WUWT does not seem to suffer from the same problems so I would guess that they can be fixed with some effort Until then that is probably where I shall graze with an occasional look in here Rich Steve I dislike the threading as well And you re right that Anthony has turned this off and so we should be able to as well See owe to Rich Posted Jan 2 2010 at 7 08 AM Permalink Reply P P S My son s laptop has 1280 pixel width and Firefox and I ve tried out the CA Assistant on it So I may have to start bumping him off it in order to browse CA Steve thanks for your comment re the threading Rich See owe to Rich Posted Aug 1 2010 at 7 52 PM Permalink Reply I d like to reiterate the following from above The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible This problem does not seem to occur at WUWT so I presume there must be some way of fixing it It must be making CA a less busy site because for example a few hours after I posted http climateaudit org 2010 06 15 unthreaded 39 comment 237282 it was not under the Recent Comments so not that many people will have read it especially in the UK where it is night time now Rich See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 12 AM Permalink Reply P S I just followed the link to CA Assistant As it can apparently sort the threads this would help with one of my complaints However I do not have Firefox on this computer and as I m challenged for disk space I might have to remove something to install it Trouble is I keep downloading interesting Global Warming PDFs that I come across and Windows Update adds junk which takes effort to clear out but anyway that s my problem Rich Terry Kette Posted Jan 17 2010 at 5 28 PM Permalink Reply ANY HVAC GUYS HERE Just for the sake of argument let s assume the Earth surface temp did rise 0 5 C Dry Bulb If the wet bulb temperature remained the same the HEAT J gm dry air or BTU LB dry air DID NOT RISE In other words no heat was added Only the sensible heat rose the latent heat fell Sensible heat latent heat total enthalpy of the air Voila no warming As I understand

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/ca-blog-setup/?replytocom=213778 (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • CA blog setup « Climate Audit
    time WP Paypal Donate Widget enables the CA Tip Jar for payments through Paypal WordPress com Stats produces useful stats for the blog which are stored by wordpress com and not us WP phpmyadmin allows access to phpmydmin from within WordPress admin WP Tuner powerful blog performance analysis enables diagnosis of many performance issues Written by MrPete to help speed up CA Additionally I have configured two generic text widgets to do Google Search and Google AdSense functionality The code within the widgets is supplied by Google when you register for Adsense Give your comments here Like this Like Loading 16 Comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 00 PM Permalink Reply This is a test Some tried to use UBBC syntax in a comment It did not work and showed in the comment as i some text i Elsewhere WordPress refers to HTML XHTML which would be some text We will see which if either renders in comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 13 PM Permalink Reply The result is that HTML XHTML works and UBBC does not The acceptable formatting codes are listed on http en support wordpress com code The general difference is that UBBC codes are preceded by and ended by but HTML XHTML is preceded by less than symbol and ended by greater than symbol I hope this illustration renders WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 22 PM Permalink Reply By the way I can t find a Preview function under Post a Comment None of these comments are criticisms just suggestions ralph Posted Dec 13 2009 at 12 02 PM Permalink Reply Hey get this thing working I need to hear more about the warmth you have created WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Testing sub and sup codes that failed in a previous post of mine Admin please delete if sub and sup work Testing sub code This is a subscript Testing sup code This is a superscript WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Did not work WA777 Posted Jan 3 2010 at 2 24 PM Permalink Reply Ooops Re my posts of December 12 and 26 I should have read up on CA Assistant RTFM Sorry See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 03 AM Permalink Reply Happy new decade At least by my personal scientific counting method But I m not sure if it s a decade in which I shall be participating on ClimateAudit a lot Apart from it being much quicker than the old system everything else seems worse to me I have a 1024 pixel width screen and the top of many articles is now unreadable as the left sidebar enroaches across it The use of subthreads within articles makes it harder to come along and browse at the recent action The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible I may now have to bookmark articles because I can t rely on them remaining accessible at the right sidebar I preferred the old style straight numbering system but that s just a WIBNI I note that WUWT does not seem to suffer from the same problems so I would guess that they can be fixed with some effort Until then that is probably where I shall graze with an occasional look in here Rich Steve I dislike the threading as well And you re right that Anthony has turned this off and so we should be able to as well See owe to Rich Posted Jan 2 2010 at 7 08 AM Permalink Reply P P S My son s laptop has 1280 pixel width and Firefox and I ve tried out the CA Assistant on it So I may have to start bumping him off it in order to browse CA Steve thanks for your comment re the threading Rich See owe to Rich Posted Aug 1 2010 at 7 52 PM Permalink Reply I d like to reiterate the following from above The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible This problem does not seem to occur at WUWT so I presume there must be some way of fixing it It must be making CA a less busy site because for example a few hours after I posted http climateaudit org 2010 06 15 unthreaded 39 comment 237282 it was not under the Recent Comments so not that many people will have read it especially in the UK where it is night time now Rich See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 12 AM Permalink Reply P S I just followed the link to CA Assistant As it can apparently sort the threads this would help with one of my complaints However I do not have Firefox on this computer and as I m challenged for disk space I might have to remove something to install it Trouble is I keep downloading interesting Global Warming PDFs that I come across and Windows Update adds junk which takes effort to clear out but anyway that s my problem Rich Terry Kette Posted Jan 17 2010 at 5 28 PM Permalink Reply ANY HVAC GUYS HERE Just for the sake of argument let s assume the Earth surface temp did rise 0 5 C Dry Bulb If the wet bulb temperature remained the same the HEAT J gm dry air or BTU LB dry air DID NOT RISE In other words no heat was added Only the sensible heat rose the latent heat fell Sensible heat latent heat total enthalpy of the air Voila no warming

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/ca-blog-setup/?replytocom=213934 (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • CA blog setup « Climate Audit
    Donate Widget enables the CA Tip Jar for payments through Paypal WordPress com Stats produces useful stats for the blog which are stored by wordpress com and not us WP phpmyadmin allows access to phpmydmin from within WordPress admin WP Tuner powerful blog performance analysis enables diagnosis of many performance issues Written by MrPete to help speed up CA Additionally I have configured two generic text widgets to do Google Search and Google AdSense functionality The code within the widgets is supplied by Google when you register for Adsense Give your comments here Like this Like Loading 16 Comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 00 PM Permalink Reply This is a test Some tried to use UBBC syntax in a comment It did not work and showed in the comment as i some text i Elsewhere WordPress refers to HTML XHTML which would be some text We will see which if either renders in comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 13 PM Permalink Reply The result is that HTML XHTML works and UBBC does not The acceptable formatting codes are listed on http en support wordpress com code The general difference is that UBBC codes are preceded by and ended by but HTML XHTML is preceded by less than symbol and ended by greater than symbol I hope this illustration renders WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 22 PM Permalink Reply By the way I can t find a Preview function under Post a Comment None of these comments are criticisms just suggestions ralph Posted Dec 13 2009 at 12 02 PM Permalink Reply Hey get this thing working I need to hear more about the warmth you have created WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Testing sub and sup codes that failed in a previous post of mine Admin please delete if sub and sup work Testing sub code This is a subscript Testing sup code This is a superscript WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Did not work WA777 Posted Jan 3 2010 at 2 24 PM Permalink Reply Ooops Re my posts of December 12 and 26 I should have read up on CA Assistant RTFM Sorry See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 03 AM Permalink Reply Happy new decade At least by my personal scientific counting method But I m not sure if it s a decade in which I shall be participating on ClimateAudit a lot Apart from it being much quicker than the old system everything else seems worse to me I have a 1024 pixel width screen and the top of many articles is now unreadable as the left sidebar enroaches across it The use of subthreads within articles makes it harder to come along and browse at the recent action The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible I may now have to bookmark articles because I can t rely on them remaining accessible at the right sidebar I preferred the old style straight numbering system but that s just a WIBNI I note that WUWT does not seem to suffer from the same problems so I would guess that they can be fixed with some effort Until then that is probably where I shall graze with an occasional look in here Rich Steve I dislike the threading as well And you re right that Anthony has turned this off and so we should be able to as well See owe to Rich Posted Jan 2 2010 at 7 08 AM Permalink Reply P P S My son s laptop has 1280 pixel width and Firefox and I ve tried out the CA Assistant on it So I may have to start bumping him off it in order to browse CA Steve thanks for your comment re the threading Rich See owe to Rich Posted Aug 1 2010 at 7 52 PM Permalink Reply I d like to reiterate the following from above The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible This problem does not seem to occur at WUWT so I presume there must be some way of fixing it It must be making CA a less busy site because for example a few hours after I posted http climateaudit org 2010 06 15 unthreaded 39 comment 237282 it was not under the Recent Comments so not that many people will have read it especially in the UK where it is night time now Rich See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 12 AM Permalink Reply P S I just followed the link to CA Assistant As it can apparently sort the threads this would help with one of my complaints However I do not have Firefox on this computer and as I m challenged for disk space I might have to remove something to install it Trouble is I keep downloading interesting Global Warming PDFs that I come across and Windows Update adds junk which takes effort to clear out but anyway that s my problem Rich Terry Kette Posted Jan 17 2010 at 5 28 PM Permalink Reply ANY HVAC GUYS HERE Just for the sake of argument let s assume the Earth surface temp did rise 0 5 C Dry Bulb If the wet bulb temperature remained the same the HEAT J gm dry air or BTU LB dry air DID NOT RISE In other words no heat was added Only the sensible heat rose the latent heat fell Sensible heat latent heat total enthalpy of the air Voila no warming As I understand

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/ca-blog-setup/?replytocom=237311 (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Unthreaded « Climate Audit
    is incapable of solving the FYSP but this difference is larger than I thought it would be Anyone have a more precise calculation suricat Posted Jun 23 2010 at 7 05 PM Permalink Andrew I don t think a CO2 model can determine this However the atmospheric end of the hydrocycle probably can accommodate the young sun hypothesis At current insolation levels cloud top reflection of incoming SW keeps the surface cool by many w m 2 and a reset period of 9 days lifetime offers a rapid regional response A young sun just wouldn t provide the same intensity of cloud cover You may also find the link I offered Mike L interesting http www drroyspencer com 2010 04 a response to kevin trenberth Best regards Ray Dart JohnB Posted Jun 23 2010 at 12 01 PM Permalink Just as a heads up and perhaps this isn t the right place to put it I don t know how in depth you plan on looking into the US Government malfeasance but one of the major players in the incident the Minerals Management Service has undergone a name change to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement http www mms gov doug Posted Jun 23 2010 at 6 38 PM Permalink There is a nice list of the Climate Science Blacklist here http www eecg utoronto ca prall climate skeptic authors table html Notice they list Steve M as a person involved in Oil and Gas exploration Do you suppose they just compiled that whole list without any research I guess affiliation with oil is more evil than mining so they went with that cicero Posted Jun 23 2010 at 7 49 PM Permalink Don t know if anyone has posted this or not here at CA If so sorry I periodically check the Muir Russell site for evidence submissions and never found any It s there now Here s the link if interested http www cce review org Evidence php Appears to include all submissions made to the committee including Steve s Steve My supplementary submission made in early June is not included though a supplementary submission by the Team on May 26 is Brandon Shollenberger Posted Jun 26 2010 at 7 29 AM Permalink Seeing as the last thread I posted in was closed without me responding to a number of things I feel I should offer a chance to resolve any outstanding issues If there are any questions comments or concerns I can address I will do my best to do so keeping in mind a food fight is unacceptable That said there are a couple points I noticed which I wanted to address The first comes from Richard T Fowler It is now 45 minutes since I demanded that Brandon Schollenberger quote from the supposed response that he has alleged to exist and over 2 and 1 2 hours since he first made the false claim that I had made up the claim that McIntyre s claims were not responded to The first thing I want to note is my name does not have a c in it More importantly this comment shows why I said I would not jump around a thread to respond to people I have things I want to do with my time other than post on this site It takes too much time and effort to have exchanges like were going on in the other thread and nothing seems to get resolved I asked to try to organize things but nobody seemed interested It seems unreasonable to expect someone to post the way people expected me to post Of course you don t get it you wrote it and you know the meanings behind it I just don t understand why you get your knickers in a twist by this misinterpretation Otherwise I agree with your message s so let s call it a day Beer anyone This comment from Hoi Polloi demonstrates a common problem on the internet He says he doesn t understand why I got upset about people misunderstanding my comment The problem is I didn t get upset about it I was merely expressing genuine confusion as I didn t think the misinterpretation made sense Tone isn t conveyed well over the internet and it is easy to read the worst possible tone My personal approach is to try to take the best interpretation when I am uncertain In any event I hope I can resolve some issues without causing unnecessary strife Brandon Shollenberger Posted Jun 26 2010 at 7 40 AM Permalink As an afterthought it occurs to me some issues might be better resolved off site If something else would work better for anyone I have no problem with it AMac Posted Jun 26 2010 at 10 11 AM Permalink Everybody comes out of a food fight looking bad Misunderstandings abound there is sometimes some dark amusement in spotting them before the combatants do But most readers don t care about what s being vehemently disputed Of those readers that do most will have forgotten why they seemed to matter within a few days On the issues raised by Arthur Smith s and Steve McIntyre s posts there are some good comments following Arthur s post here note that there s a Page 2 of comments Brandon Shollenberger Posted Jun 26 2010 at 11 32 AM Permalink I really did not intend to cause a food fight The situation was simple and I expected it to be resolved rather quickly once things were laid out clearly I mistakenly thought if the misunderstandings were exposed everyone would back off Instead it seems my comments just added fuel to the fire In my past readings of ClimateAudit I always got the impression of fair and level headedness Because of that the sheer amount of vitriol in that topic was baffling There are so many comments in it which I feel merit a response but I m afraid to say anything given what happened the last time I posted That said it is obvious to me Arthur Smith has a flawed view of the big picture Reading some of his comments I can see why he is wrong Quite frankly the situation is not easy to understand There is no beginner s guide to all the material ClimateAudit has covered There is no way people can be expected to know all the issues And given the way he was treated can you really expect him to want to listen to them Richard T Fowler Posted Jun 26 2010 at 10 12 PM Permalink Mr Shollenberger I m sorry about the repeated error with your name It was entirely accidental Though after I was advised the first time perhaps it was subconscious It certainly does underscore the point I found myself repeatedly making In light of your most recent comment the one to which I am now replying I can say that I have only one outstanding matter of contention with you This can be illustrated as follows You quote me as saying since he first made the false claim Hopefully you can see that it would have changed the meaning somewhat that is to say dramatically if I had said since he first made UP the false claim I can assure you that the claim I referred to in the statement you have just quoted is false In order for it to be true I would have to have believed that there existed a response as I define the term and as I have defined it on the page where we communicated If that were the case that would mean that all my expressed offense or outrage about Smith s reply to McIntyre was phony I can assure you that I am was and have been nothing BUT offended and outraged about Smith s reply to McIntyre If you have any doubt about that well you have no need to reply to the present comment If however you believe that I was offended by Smith s reply to McIntyre I ask that you admit that at the very least you cannot be certain that I made up the claim Better than that would be a statement that the claims that I made it up are not supported by the preponderance of the evidence Even better than that would be to say that your statements that I made it up were clearly unwarranted by the facts that were in hand and are unwarranted by the facts that are in hand If you would make any of these statements or substantially the same I agree that I will permanently forget about the above referenced matter of contention Regards Richard T Fowler Brandon Shollenberger Posted Jun 26 2010 at 10 51 PM Permalink I can t agree with you The first point I want to make is non essential but I think it merits attention due to its absurdity At one point you said No it isn t Let s be clear Reply means any statement said or written as a result of a previous one Response means a statement that is actually responsive to some other specific statement As far as I can see this is completely arbitrary I have never experienced the definitions used here and I find no evidence for it in any dictionary This seems to be some sort of post hoc attempt to avoid admitting a mistake It is made even worse when one realizes the after the fact justification in no way covers another comment of yours which I quoted just above where you offered your semantic defense McIntyre made claims that you made false statements You ignored them And now you want to get credit for having answered McIntyre s claims You answered only one of them the claim that false statements were made after the intro Even if one were to accept your definition of response something I see no reason to do you said Arthur Smith ignored McIntyre s claims There is no wordplay which could even pretend to explain that away The idea that Arthur Smith ignored McIntyre s claims was made up Richard T Fowler Posted Jun 27 2010 at 12 20 AM Permalink I don t know what exactly to say The idea was not made up I believed it and I continue to believe it The definition you discuss my definition is really the definition that I always try to use and have tried to stick to for quite some time I was very careful in my language in these posts to try to stick to it and as a result I was careful to use words such as post answer and reply instead of response or respond when I did not feel that a response had happened Even if you use a different definition of the word response that does not have to mean that I use the same definition in my writing If the question were what is a reasonable interpretation of the meaning of my words then one could consider the question of What is the most reasonable definition of the word response for the given context But since the question here is only what I believed it is at best of marginal relevance what definition you yourself use or used Since I had never before corresponded with or spoken to you or read or heard your words I had no way of knowing what definition you would consider appropriate and even if I did that does not necessarily mean that I considered myself bound by it As for your last three paragraphs Smith s reply to McIntyre speaks for itself That paragraph was part of my intro The main post doesn t start until I quote Steven Mosher That s all Smith wrote The only way it could conceivably be argued that I made up my claim is if there is some hint in that quote of a reference to the truth or falsehood of the statements in question on the blog post of Arthur Smith That might if I really didn t believe what I was saying be used as a means to infer what thoughts I had in my mind But even in that case I just really fail to see what my motive would be It s not as if Smith hadn t taken a verbal lashing on other grounds If it s so transparently obvious that the claim that Smith didn t respond is untrue why would I not just pick something more credible to rail about And that assumes that I wanted to rail against Smith which I didn t want to do until I saw his reply to McIntyre and was incensed by it You don t think it s the slightest bit possible that I was offended by the Smith statement I quoted here RTF Richard T Fowler Posted Jun 27 2010 at 12 51 AM Permalink One correction to my last post obviously the term answer is one I was using as a synonym for respond in the quote that Shollenberger cited just now But post and reply were clearly being used by me to indicate something that was not necessarily a response RTF Richard T Fowler Posted Jun 27 2010 at 11 18 AM Permalink And an addendum to the same post One further thought In referring to my alleged effort to avoid admitting a mistake which I dispute you seem to be referring to your post here http climateaudit org 2010 06 23 arthur smiths trick comment 233331 In which you say Now then I ll admit I messed up in my response to you I should have caught your mistake right away The previous paragraph says So your complaint is Arthur Smith did not respond to certain claims but did respond to a minor claim instead The reality is he responded to the minor claim here and edited the post on his website to respond to the rest If I have correctly identified the mistake you were referring to then this means that you were implicitly stating at that time that I actually believed that there was no response and that such belief was a mistake While I obviously disagree that it was a mistake I do agree that I did and do believe that there was no response to the claims of false statements If you were telling the truth about your view at that time then that must mean you only subsequently came to the view that I had made it up The apparent suggestion that my claim began as genuine which alone proves my assertion that one cannot be certain that I made anything up and then turned into a fabrication is in stark contrast to your later statement Statement 1 Why did I PO RTF I d imagine the reason is because Richard T Fowler made something up He claimed Arthur Smith didn t respond to something but Arthur Smith had responded and also to your use of the word obviously here Statement 2 Regardless of why it happened he obviously made it up and also to this Statement 3 There is no wordplay which could even pretend to explain that away In the case of Statement 1 particularly it is noteworthy that that statement was made during your last comment to me before I declared that I wasn t going to continue Since that declaration was obviously the basis of Bender s assertion that I had been PO d by you and since referring again to Statement 1 you apparently agreed that you had PO d me on that occasion that must mean that you were arguing in statement 1 that you had already at that point concluded that I had made my claim up Yet your testimony at the time was that it was a mistake These two statements that it was a mistake and that I made it up cannot both be true and thus it follows that at least one of them must be false I of course attest that they are BOTH false but at the very least one of them MUST be I reiterate that at no time in the conversation did I try nor did I have any motive to avoid admitting a mistake by fabricating a definition or any other information because at no time have I ever believed that I made the alleged mistake I did make a mistake in my assessment of Smith s words on one occasion saying Smith had responded to McIntyre s comment when I clearly believed that he hadn t I was typing quickly and apparently it was my half conscious desire to put the word response in quotes But apparently I also was considering using another word such as reply and in my haste I failed to put the quotes around response BUT THIS ERROR WAS ADMITTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER I STATED MY DEFINITION OF THE WORD RESPONSE Therefore I obviously was not using the definition to try to hide that mistake In order for you to be right that I made up my claim this one mistake calling Smith s obvious non response to certain claims a response would have to have been my real belief and all the other instances of my using the word reply or post for what I obviously believed to be non responses would have to have been the setup for an elaborate ruse The real reason that I made the mistake was in fact because when I am not discussing communication related or linguistic issues I relax a little and sometimes accidentally use a more colloquial definition since that s the one I grew up with But there exists a formal definition in my vocabulary the definition I cited and when I have a communication related issue arise I try to consciously switch into that formal mode But I am imperfect with this because I don t have to do it too often In the post in question I immediately realized my mistake after posting and this caused me to be more vigilant going forward I made one other slip up but it was not in the context of assessing Smith s words rather in the hiding behind a tree analogy Thus it should be clear that rather than it being the case that I revealed my true belief about Smith s words on that one occasion and fabricated a nonexistent belief on all the other occasions instead I accidentally used my colloquial definition on the one occasion even though my own standard rules would have dictated switching to the formal definition On the matter of why I use the formal definition I do for the word response it is because this definition alone provides for the fact that not all statements made as a result of another statement are responsive to the other statement A less rigorous definition than mine allows people to say things such as Your response is not responsive which deconstructs to Your response is not a response or You responded but you didn t respond Since both of these statements are tautologies any definition which allows them is also a tautology and is thus impossible in any logically valid vocabulary Returning to the matter of the OTHER mistake the one you had alleged it should also be noted that the contrast between your earlier statement that I made a mistake and the later statements I have labeled 1 3 here shows that even if you honestly changed your mind the issue is not cut and dried as you have lately suggested it to be Thus this fact alone proves in yet another way that one cannot in any way be certain that I made anything up The evidence simply falls far short of demonstrating this and in fact if it weren t for my two mistakes in usage of the word respond the case that I could not POSSIBLY have made up my claim would be prima facie as would the case that you made a false statement against me Again for the record I DID NOT AT ANY TIME IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM MAKE UP ANY OF MY STATEMENTS MADE IN ANY COMMENT ON THIS BLOG And in discussing a matter of science which this is I have never in my life made ANYTHING up and have no intention of ever doing so That would be repugnant and though I don t currently have a position in research could obviously be professionally damaging to me If the implication here is that the motive was nothing more than to score points in a rhetorical roast how dumb would I have to be to think that such a reason is worth the risk of getting exposed That is intended as a rhetorical question I don t happen to think I am anywhere near dumb enough But if there happens to be a reader of this post with a different opinion I suggest that they keep it to themselves RTF bender Posted Jun 27 2010 at 11 13 AM Permalink Art Smith s response was wholly inadequate Contrast with Steve Mosher s response to Art which was wholly adequate Laurent Cavin Posted Jun 26 2010 at 11 00 AM Permalink On the advice of Hu McCulloch a repost in a more appropriate location as it was off topic initially Swiss Re Reinsurance company published a refutation of skeptics arguments If anybody s interested see http media swissre com documents rethinking factsheet climate sceptic pdf It contains for instance a short discussion of Mann s Hockey Stick and makes short work of Steve s work The alternative results presented by MM as well as by Soon Balliunas were shown to be biased by omitting relevant data and application the results of MM show a warm period in the 14 15th century ie during the beginning of the Little Ice Age This is in contrast to all other independent reconstructions I do not say anything about them being right or wrong I just wanted to share the link with all of you and especially Steve as his work is criticized One thing I must say however even if I am not convinced by their document is that Swiss Re puts its money where its mouth is Let me explain one could pretend scientists have an advantage of supporting the consensus in order to get another grant or a better position But the Insurance company is basing its policy i e its forecasts and its calculations of premium on the reality of Global Warming They have no specific interests for that and one could argue that they could loose money if they bet wrong For me that a slightly more neutral opinion and if they are convinced enough to publish a definitively not neutral refutation of skepticism that s a strong statement Regards Laurent MikeN Posted Jun 26 2010 at 11 20 AM Permalink Yes it is more valid for an insurance company to put money behind something However that is not the last point Just the excerpt you pasted shows they are not spending their money wisely Steve McIntyre was pointing out errors in a re not building an alternate reconstruction That a corrected version shows warming in the 15th century just means there are bigger problems with the original study One possibility is that the proxies in question are not accurate If after a review this is what they came up with means they are doing a horrible review Indeed if I had a company with billions of dollars at stake I would certainly be running things by a proper peer review Laurent Cavin Posted Jun 26 2010 at 2 31 PM Permalink BillyBob They have no specific interests for that Using one example the AGW side claims it will increase the number of hurricanes It that was so claims for huricanes will rise And therefore insurance companies wil raise rates and or offset some of their potential claims by buying reinsurance from a reinsurance company If fearmongering leads to more business but no more claims then its a big financial win for a reinsurance company http en wikipedia org wiki Reinsurance Ok I did not think of it that way But they are not alone in the business I think Munich Re is even bigger than Swiss Re So if because of wrong beliefs Swiss Re increases its rates but Munich Re does not guess where the customers will be going Well Munich Re apparently share the opinion of Swiss Re Finally I don t know But whom do you trust harrywr2 Posted Jun 27 2010 at 9 16 PM Permalink For most insurance companies the amount of assets maintained for potential payouts are non taxable I E Insurance company takes in 100 in premiums They pay out 50 in claims In simple accounting they would then have to pay taxes on the 50 in profit In Insurance accounting the insurance company tells the tax man that it needs to set aside 45 for future claims so it s not actually profit and shouldn t be taxed Of course the taxman asks for evidence of the potential for these future claims and out comes the IPCC report So the insurance company puts 45 into a special reserve for global warming damaged and pays taxes on 5 Swiss Re Munich Re every other insurance company in the world if they have an opportunity to increase their non taxable reserves rather then pay taxes they will I live 27 feet above sea level according to Al Gore my house will be under water soon so I think the taxman should start taxing me now on the Al Gore value of my house which is zero I think if the taxman would go for it I d believe in global warming too Laurent Cavin Posted Jun 28 2010 at 2 55 PM Permalink Thanks for your answer I stand corrected apparently Insurances are among the guys having interest in alarmism Which leaves us again with the complaint who can we trust Dave Dardinger Posted Jun 26 2010 at 8 02 PM Permalink Re Laurent Cavin Jun 26 11 00 if they are convinced enough to publish a definitively not neutral refutation of skepticism that s a strong statement I went and looked at the refutation and was greatly unimpressed It s all the same rot that s been pushed by the AGW crowd for years now and lacks any substantive content I believe that the biased by omitting relevant data and application canard has actually undergone two lives neither of which are correct The first time Mann complained that Steve used wrong data even though it s data Mann supplied Steve via one of his underlings I forget at the moment just who Once Steve had the correct data and showed Mann s method to be pick one lacking in robustness WRT bristlecones or capable of producing hockey sticks from white noise the claim was made that Steve s reconstruction was not significant because it didn t use important data This was silly because Steve wasn t producing a reconstruction of his own but merely showing that Mann s reconstruction relied on bad data Another claim that Mann allies made was that Mann s reconstruction was ok as long as he could go down to PC5 instead of just PC2 as Steve did But Mann has never been able to justify with a source the use of a PC5 All the rest of the stuff is of a similar ilk Many regulars here could just about name the typical refutations of Steve in their sleep and often wouldn t have to wake up to show what s wrong with them The reinsurers should demand their money back from whoever supplied their info Laurent Cavin Posted Jun 28 2010 at 3 02 PM Permalink I was mostly impressed by the author But even that does not impress me anymore see above With regards to the content I guess it is more of the same Thanks for clarifying the part about Steve s work Can anybody comment about A4 fingerprint for me this is a key argument against a dominant effect of CO2 but they say the data are getting corrected and corrected again until they fit the models Can somebody judge whether the data are indeed getting corrected or whether the issue is still critical Thanks Dave Dardinger Posted Jun 28 2010 at 8 04 PM Permalink Re Laurent Cavin Jun 28 15 02 Are you referring to temperature adjustments The status of various adjustments varies Most of the main players here have been convinced that the time of day correction is needed and of course changes due to station move are needed but often not available The adjustment for UHI is a big problem as IMO the AGW crowd are just plain cheating on this subject Night lights and wind are indirect measures of something which can be done much more directly and some simple back of the envelope calculations can show that the figures the AGW people push must be wrong OTOH those skeptics who have audited the actual corrected data going into the publicly available datasets Giss NASA etc have been finding that the calculations of the final results seem to be correct IOW assuming you can verify the actual corrections made which hasn t been done yet AFAIK then the temperatures follow And this is good because it lets people move on to trying to get the actual processes used to make the corrections Some of these are available and some aren t It d be a good project for someone to try find out just where this process stands at the moment Laurent Cavin Posted Jun 29 2010 at 2 30 AM Permalink Thanks for your answer Dave but I was actually asking for the fingerprints of warming not adjustments to the temperature measurements Perhaps to clarify Models show that warming because of GHG should present a hot spot higher rate of warming not directly higher temperatures of course in the tropics at 8 14km altitude as well as at low altitudes in the polar regions See http www ipcc ch publications and data ar4 wg1 en ch9s9 2 2 html Measurements with Radiosondes apparently show the hot spot near the surface with even a lower rate of warming in the tropical 8 14km region This seems uncompatible with GHG based warming and more compatible with e g solar forcing blended with some ozone change See Figure 5 7 panel E here http www climatescience gov Library sap sap1 1 finalreport sap1 1 final chap5 pdf Thanks for any info on this matter Laurent Dave Dardinger Posted Jun 29 2010 at 8 55 AM Permalink Re Laurent Cavin Jun 29 02 30 Well the whole theory of Global Warming is that IR emitted by the surface is absorbed by GHGs in the troposphere which is then thermalized since almost all of the GHG molecules at least of CO2 and I believe H2O as well have many collisions before their typical emission time and thus the troposphere is heated and will then increase back radiation to the surface This ipso facto will heat the surface relative to the situation with less CO2 in the atmosphere This is readily accepted by any skeptic who knows what he or she is talking about The point of contention is what happens next What the models show is moot as what they show as far as the presently existing models go is based on the assumptions used to build them and all of them have a built in assumption of a positive H2O feedback If a similar model were tested with a negative feedback or even no feedback then it might be worth looking for a fingerprint for warming Laurent Cavin Posted Jun 29 2010 at 3 10 PM Permalink Dear Dave To clarify I made a composite picture sorry for the low quality of data I manually tried to reconstitute the plots from printouts The discrepancy between models and observation seems enormous The question is are the values from the radiosondes trustworthy or as GW proponent says are they not Regards Laurent Laurent Cavin Posted Jun 29 2010 at 2 35 AM Permalink By the way Dave I was wondering why some people still doubt the global average temperatures blaming UIH or other effects when satelite and weather station fit so well I mean such a fit cannot be chance Dave Dardinger Posted Jun 29 2010 at 9 02 AM Permalink Re Laurent Cavin Jun 29 02 35 They don t fit quite as well as you think but in any case look at the actual temperature rise it s 3 4 deg C in 30 years meaning a temperature rise of about 1 1 5 deg C per century in accord with the doubling of CO2 with no feedback IOW there s no sign of CAGW Laurent Cavin Posted Jun 29 2010 at 3 15 PM Permalink On this point I fully agree I think it s indeed difficult to theorize a large feedback and still fit the data unless you assume that conveniently the natural system would otherwise have cooled down This is what IPCC is assuming and the coincidence streches the imagination MikeN Posted Jun 26 2010 at 11 21 AM Permalink When I try to load the PDF it doesn t work I get an error popup with no text and I hit OK and get a black screen Laurent Cavin Posted Jun 26 2010 at 2 25 PM Permalink If you mean the SiwssRe doc here the webpage The link is on the right side http www swissre com rethinking climate climate sceptics html Regards D T Posted Jun 26 2010 at 1 23 PM Permalink Could you categorize this post as Unthreaded I like reading the off topic comments but it s getting ready to slip off the front page Thanks D T MrPete Posted Jun 27 2010 at 5 17 PM Permalink A new topic another aspect of the politicization of science soooo sad how pride and greed get in the way of honest service http www financialpost com Avertible 20catastrophe 3203808 story html Richard T Fowler Posted Jun 27 2010 at 9 48 PM Permalink Thanks that s appreciated There are a lot of things embarrassing about this country these days I seriously don t even recognize it any more from 25 years ago Not in the slightest But for whatever reason I find it very hard to abandon her Everyone has their cross perhaps that s mine RTF RDoiro Posted Jun 28 2010 at 2 32 AM Permalink Mr Rui Moura has died He was one of the most active sceptics in Portugal at http mitos climaticos blogspot com http ecotretas blogspot com 2010 06 rui moura faleceu html http fiel inimigo blogspot com 2010 06 mitos climaticos html http fiel inimigo blogspot com 2010 06 faleceu rui g moura html Shub Niggurath Posted Jun 28 2010 at 5 24 AM Permalink Dear Steve Re Amazongate I examined the IPCC first and second order drafts of the section on Amazon forests Some very interesting findings indeed http nigguraths wordpress com 2010 06 25 amazongate ipcc Regards MikeN Posted Jun 28 2010 at 10 45 AM Permalink You went after Arthur Smith but did you see RealClimate s calling ClimateAudit dishonest or disingenuous that we consider it dishonest or disingenuous with respect to the science Pielke Jr Blackboard and ClimateAudit all fall squarely into the latter category eric bender Posted Jun 28 2010 at 11 19 PM Permalink Maybe eric has specific examples he d like to talk about here FWIW lucia s Blackboard also does

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/15/unthreaded-39/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • CA blog setup « Climate Audit
    time WP Paypal Donate Widget enables the CA Tip Jar for payments through Paypal WordPress com Stats produces useful stats for the blog which are stored by wordpress com and not us WP phpmyadmin allows access to phpmydmin from within WordPress admin WP Tuner powerful blog performance analysis enables diagnosis of many performance issues Written by MrPete to help speed up CA Additionally I have configured two generic text widgets to do Google Search and Google AdSense functionality The code within the widgets is supplied by Google when you register for Adsense Give your comments here Like this Like Loading 16 Comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 00 PM Permalink Reply This is a test Some tried to use UBBC syntax in a comment It did not work and showed in the comment as i some text i Elsewhere WordPress refers to HTML XHTML which would be some text We will see which if either renders in comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 13 PM Permalink Reply The result is that HTML XHTML works and UBBC does not The acceptable formatting codes are listed on http en support wordpress com code The general difference is that UBBC codes are preceded by and ended by but HTML XHTML is preceded by less than symbol and ended by greater than symbol I hope this illustration renders WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 22 PM Permalink Reply By the way I can t find a Preview function under Post a Comment None of these comments are criticisms just suggestions ralph Posted Dec 13 2009 at 12 02 PM Permalink Reply Hey get this thing working I need to hear more about the warmth you have created WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Testing sub and sup codes that failed in a previous post of mine Admin please delete if sub and sup work Testing sub code This is a subscript Testing sup code This is a superscript WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Did not work WA777 Posted Jan 3 2010 at 2 24 PM Permalink Reply Ooops Re my posts of December 12 and 26 I should have read up on CA Assistant RTFM Sorry See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 03 AM Permalink Reply Happy new decade At least by my personal scientific counting method But I m not sure if it s a decade in which I shall be participating on ClimateAudit a lot Apart from it being much quicker than the old system everything else seems worse to me I have a 1024 pixel width screen and the top of many articles is now unreadable as the left sidebar enroaches across it The use of subthreads within articles makes it harder to come along and browse at the recent action The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible I may now have to bookmark articles because I can t rely on them remaining accessible at the right sidebar I preferred the old style straight numbering system but that s just a WIBNI I note that WUWT does not seem to suffer from the same problems so I would guess that they can be fixed with some effort Until then that is probably where I shall graze with an occasional look in here Rich Steve I dislike the threading as well And you re right that Anthony has turned this off and so we should be able to as well See owe to Rich Posted Jan 2 2010 at 7 08 AM Permalink Reply P P S My son s laptop has 1280 pixel width and Firefox and I ve tried out the CA Assistant on it So I may have to start bumping him off it in order to browse CA Steve thanks for your comment re the threading Rich See owe to Rich Posted Aug 1 2010 at 7 52 PM Permalink Reply I d like to reiterate the following from above The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible This problem does not seem to occur at WUWT so I presume there must be some way of fixing it It must be making CA a less busy site because for example a few hours after I posted http climateaudit org 2010 06 15 unthreaded 39 comment 237282 it was not under the Recent Comments so not that many people will have read it especially in the UK where it is night time now Rich See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 12 AM Permalink Reply P S I just followed the link to CA Assistant As it can apparently sort the threads this would help with one of my complaints However I do not have Firefox on this computer and as I m challenged for disk space I might have to remove something to install it Trouble is I keep downloading interesting Global Warming PDFs that I come across and Windows Update adds junk which takes effort to clear out but anyway that s my problem Rich Terry Kette Posted Jan 17 2010 at 5 28 PM Permalink Reply ANY HVAC GUYS HERE Just for the sake of argument let s assume the Earth surface temp did rise 0 5 C Dry Bulb If the wet bulb temperature remained the same the HEAT J gm dry air or BTU LB dry air DID NOT RISE In other words no heat was added Only the sensible heat rose the latent heat fell Sensible heat latent heat total enthalpy of the air Voila no warming

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/ca-blog-setup/?replytocom=213779 (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • CA blog setup « Climate Audit
    Donate Widget enables the CA Tip Jar for payments through Paypal WordPress com Stats produces useful stats for the blog which are stored by wordpress com and not us WP phpmyadmin allows access to phpmydmin from within WordPress admin WP Tuner powerful blog performance analysis enables diagnosis of many performance issues Written by MrPete to help speed up CA Additionally I have configured two generic text widgets to do Google Search and Google AdSense functionality The code within the widgets is supplied by Google when you register for Adsense Give your comments here Like this Like Loading 16 Comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 00 PM Permalink Reply This is a test Some tried to use UBBC syntax in a comment It did not work and showed in the comment as i some text i Elsewhere WordPress refers to HTML XHTML which would be some text We will see which if either renders in comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 13 PM Permalink Reply The result is that HTML XHTML works and UBBC does not The acceptable formatting codes are listed on http en support wordpress com code The general difference is that UBBC codes are preceded by and ended by but HTML XHTML is preceded by less than symbol and ended by greater than symbol I hope this illustration renders WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 22 PM Permalink Reply By the way I can t find a Preview function under Post a Comment None of these comments are criticisms just suggestions ralph Posted Dec 13 2009 at 12 02 PM Permalink Reply Hey get this thing working I need to hear more about the warmth you have created WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Testing sub and sup codes that failed in a previous post of mine Admin please delete if sub and sup work Testing sub code This is a subscript Testing sup code This is a superscript WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Did not work WA777 Posted Jan 3 2010 at 2 24 PM Permalink Reply Ooops Re my posts of December 12 and 26 I should have read up on CA Assistant RTFM Sorry See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 03 AM Permalink Reply Happy new decade At least by my personal scientific counting method But I m not sure if it s a decade in which I shall be participating on ClimateAudit a lot Apart from it being much quicker than the old system everything else seems worse to me I have a 1024 pixel width screen and the top of many articles is now unreadable as the left sidebar enroaches across it The use of subthreads within articles makes it harder to come along and browse at the recent action The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible I may now have to bookmark articles because I can t rely on them remaining accessible at the right sidebar I preferred the old style straight numbering system but that s just a WIBNI I note that WUWT does not seem to suffer from the same problems so I would guess that they can be fixed with some effort Until then that is probably where I shall graze with an occasional look in here Rich Steve I dislike the threading as well And you re right that Anthony has turned this off and so we should be able to as well See owe to Rich Posted Jan 2 2010 at 7 08 AM Permalink Reply P P S My son s laptop has 1280 pixel width and Firefox and I ve tried out the CA Assistant on it So I may have to start bumping him off it in order to browse CA Steve thanks for your comment re the threading Rich See owe to Rich Posted Aug 1 2010 at 7 52 PM Permalink Reply I d like to reiterate the following from above The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible This problem does not seem to occur at WUWT so I presume there must be some way of fixing it It must be making CA a less busy site because for example a few hours after I posted http climateaudit org 2010 06 15 unthreaded 39 comment 237282 it was not under the Recent Comments so not that many people will have read it especially in the UK where it is night time now Rich See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 12 AM Permalink Reply P S I just followed the link to CA Assistant As it can apparently sort the threads this would help with one of my complaints However I do not have Firefox on this computer and as I m challenged for disk space I might have to remove something to install it Trouble is I keep downloading interesting Global Warming PDFs that I come across and Windows Update adds junk which takes effort to clear out but anyway that s my problem Rich Terry Kette Posted Jan 17 2010 at 5 28 PM Permalink Reply ANY HVAC GUYS HERE Just for the sake of argument let s assume the Earth surface temp did rise 0 5 C Dry Bulb If the wet bulb temperature remained the same the HEAT J gm dry air or BTU LB dry air DID NOT RISE In other words no heat was added Only the sensible heat rose the latent heat fell Sensible heat latent heat total enthalpy of the air Voila no warming As I understand

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/ca-blog-setup/?replytocom=216330 (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • CA blog setup « Climate Audit
    time WP Paypal Donate Widget enables the CA Tip Jar for payments through Paypal WordPress com Stats produces useful stats for the blog which are stored by wordpress com and not us WP phpmyadmin allows access to phpmydmin from within WordPress admin WP Tuner powerful blog performance analysis enables diagnosis of many performance issues Written by MrPete to help speed up CA Additionally I have configured two generic text widgets to do Google Search and Google AdSense functionality The code within the widgets is supplied by Google when you register for Adsense Give your comments here Like this Like Loading 16 Comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 00 PM Permalink Reply This is a test Some tried to use UBBC syntax in a comment It did not work and showed in the comment as i some text i Elsewhere WordPress refers to HTML XHTML which would be some text We will see which if either renders in comments WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 13 PM Permalink Reply The result is that HTML XHTML works and UBBC does not The acceptable formatting codes are listed on http en support wordpress com code The general difference is that UBBC codes are preceded by and ended by but HTML XHTML is preceded by less than symbol and ended by greater than symbol I hope this illustration renders WA777 Posted Dec 12 2009 at 4 22 PM Permalink Reply By the way I can t find a Preview function under Post a Comment None of these comments are criticisms just suggestions ralph Posted Dec 13 2009 at 12 02 PM Permalink Reply Hey get this thing working I need to hear more about the warmth you have created WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Testing sub and sup codes that failed in a previous post of mine Admin please delete if sub and sup work Testing sub code This is a subscript Testing sup code This is a superscript WA777 Posted Dec 26 2009 at 2 30 PM Permalink Reply Did not work WA777 Posted Jan 3 2010 at 2 24 PM Permalink Reply Ooops Re my posts of December 12 and 26 I should have read up on CA Assistant RTFM Sorry See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 03 AM Permalink Reply Happy new decade At least by my personal scientific counting method But I m not sure if it s a decade in which I shall be participating on ClimateAudit a lot Apart from it being much quicker than the old system everything else seems worse to me I have a 1024 pixel width screen and the top of many articles is now unreadable as the left sidebar enroaches across it The use of subthreads within articles makes it harder to come along and browse at the recent action The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible I may now have to bookmark articles because I can t rely on them remaining accessible at the right sidebar I preferred the old style straight numbering system but that s just a WIBNI I note that WUWT does not seem to suffer from the same problems so I would guess that they can be fixed with some effort Until then that is probably where I shall graze with an occasional look in here Rich Steve I dislike the threading as well And you re right that Anthony has turned this off and so we should be able to as well See owe to Rich Posted Jan 2 2010 at 7 08 AM Permalink Reply P P S My son s laptop has 1280 pixel width and Firefox and I ve tried out the CA Assistant on it So I may have to start bumping him off it in order to browse CA Steve thanks for your comment re the threading Rich See owe to Rich Posted Aug 1 2010 at 7 52 PM Permalink Reply I d like to reiterate the following from above The organization of recent comment links now gives precedence to date time rather than the old method which seemed to be up to 5 links for each article so articles with low but positive response rates could remain visible This problem does not seem to occur at WUWT so I presume there must be some way of fixing it It must be making CA a less busy site because for example a few hours after I posted http climateaudit org 2010 06 15 unthreaded 39 comment 237282 it was not under the Recent Comments so not that many people will have read it especially in the UK where it is night time now Rich See owe to Rich Posted Jan 1 2010 at 8 12 AM Permalink Reply P S I just followed the link to CA Assistant As it can apparently sort the threads this would help with one of my complaints However I do not have Firefox on this computer and as I m challenged for disk space I might have to remove something to install it Trouble is I keep downloading interesting Global Warming PDFs that I come across and Windows Update adds junk which takes effort to clear out but anyway that s my problem Rich Terry Kette Posted Jan 17 2010 at 5 28 PM Permalink Reply ANY HVAC GUYS HERE Just for the sake of argument let s assume the Earth surface temp did rise 0 5 C Dry Bulb If the wet bulb temperature remained the same the HEAT J gm dry air or BTU LB dry air DID NOT RISE In other words no heat was added Only the sensible heat rose the latent heat fell Sensible heat latent heat total enthalpy of the air Voila no warming

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/ca-blog-setup/?replytocom=251222 (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive



  •