Sunday, 26 April 2009

How Not To Measure Temperature Part 2

"As the NOAA-N Prime spacecraft was being repositioned from vertical to horizontal on the "turn over cart" at approximately 7:15 PDT today, it slipped off the fixture, causing severe damage. (See attached photo). The 18' long spacecraft was about 3' off the ground when it fell." More images at link

NOAA N-PRIME Mishap Investigation-Final Report

"On Saturday, September 6, 2003 during an operation at Lockheed Martin Space Systems
Company (LMSSC) Sunnyvale that required repositioning the Television Infrared Observational Satellites (TIROS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) N-Prime satellite from a vertical to a horizontal position, the satellite slipped from the Turn-Over Cart (TOC) and fell to the floor (see Figure 3-1). The satellite sustained heavy damage (see Figure 3-2), although no injuries to personnel occurred. The exact extent of the hardware damage is still being assessed."
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/65776main_noaa_np_mishap.pdf
Are the self-proclaimed IPCC aware that such a sensitive instrument suffered heavy hardware damage prior to launch? How does this affect said instrument's ability to measure temperature to tenths of a degree accuracy? Could this hardware damage in fact be causing a false warming trend? How is Al Gore related to all of this?
So many unanswered questions tell us that there is plenty of doubt and unsettled science here, which is what we seek as blog scientists.
Come To Your Own Conclusions
Some people may be disapointed that I didn't end the post with a strong conclusion, but never fear. In blog science the conclusion or 'take home message' is usually found in the comment section left by readers who were able to read between the lines and spell out the conclusion I was leading to but didn't want to directly state.
To be more specific, I cannot always state the conclusion directly because to reach and convince a wider audience I must maintain a high sembalance of professionalism. I must refrain from making specific claims which could be held against me if found in error. If a blog scientist is to convince journalists to spread their message they must avoid making easily identifiable errors or be seen to be 'name calling'. This is why in the above post I have simply posted a fact from the news followed by a series of open, but I hope, very leading questions. Feel free to draw my conclusions for me, that is what the comment section is primarily for after all.
Note: I had to permanently delete some comments from the last article because certain commenters were using the word 'conspiracy' directly. One poster (who will go unnamed, but who was perhaps a warmist troll) simply posted 'Its all a big conspiracy!" 30 times. A fair warning: Anyone who uses the word 'conspiracy' directly will have their post removed. That sort of language is not compatible with the reputation of this Blog. Lets be more grown up and subtle please. The phrase 'team science' is an acceptable alternative.

94 comments:

  1. Yeah, slipped off the cart...RIGHT!! Got any idea how much these guys get for overtime when they have to repair something like that on a deadline?? Bigtime pesos amigo!! There's some "team science" for ya. Got any idea how many grants roll in when your "fixed" satellite shows a convenient little warming trend? Doesn't take a rocket scientist! Ha ha, get it, rocket scientist?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Typical big government screw-up. They should privatize NOAA. This would never have happened in a private corporation.
    They should privatize IPCC as well. One cannot trust big government! And Al Gore should not get any more tax payers' money for his propaganda campaigns! He was convicted for fraud in England, and his “movie” cannot be shown there anymore, because it has too many fraudulent errors!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why were the team so casual with a satellite so clearly marked as radioactive? How much heat does the radioactive core in the satellite produce? What are NOAA hiding?

    We all know jet airliners seriously affect temperatures of thermometers up to 5 miles away so since the tropospause is only five miles thick and heat, as we also all know, rises that alone is enough to bring any low orbit satellite data into question.

    Anyway, the Arctic sea ice was clearly thinner in 1958 - we know this because of a picture on WUWT of a submarine which was lead to a place through which it could surface. Which leads me on to ask why NSIDC and Serrize, think Arctic sea ice is thinner now than it was when and where these submarines surfaced?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I read through the recommendations in the mishap .pdf, and - typical big government - nowhere does it recommend in future not dropping the f**king satellite.

    Maybe they should consider using Al Gore as a counterweight next time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Maybe they should use Al Gore as a counterweight when they catapult the satellite into orbit!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do not want your collars to obtain twisted in anyway and these metallic training collar stays assures the same.When you are preparing to buy, the spending budget as nicely as the value

      Delete
  6. They describe this as an ANOMALY. Pretty clear evidence of how the Team produce anomalies, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jebediah Arrhenius-Jones27 April 2009 12:51

    Another nail in the coffin of the warmists' scam. Poorly secured satellites = flawed science = falsified theory.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Probably the effects of the "accident" will be fairly subtle. Due to being rendered into many smaller pieces, the satellite now possesses a significantly larger surface area than it once did. The change in surface area will change the amount of heat light reflected onto the sensors, thus giving anomalous warm readings. If the satellite was made to engineering specifications this would have been picked up and rectified, but this is not how the climate science community works.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "On Saturday, September 6, 2003 during an operation at Lockheed Martin Space Systems
    Company (LMSSC) Sunnyvale that required repositioning the Television Infrared Observational Satellites (TIROS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) N-Prime satellite from a vertical to a horizontal position, the satellite slipped from the Turn-Over Cart (TOC) and fell to the floor "

    Turn-Over Cart? A friggin' PASTRY CART? What did they expect?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello everyone, it�s my first go to see at this web site, and post is actually fruitful designed for me, keep up posting these content.

      Delete
  10. Wouldn't be surprised if the satellite was intentionally trashed, to avoid documenting the cooling trend in global temps that we're enjoying now.

    *Great* discussion now at Watts Down Wi' Dat: "This provides the news media lots opportunity to get hysterical about global warming every single day - even in a completely stable temperature regime."

    ReplyDelete
  11. CutnPaste.

    What exactly is your problem with Steve Goddard's incisive statistical analysis of record events? Incidentally it is easy to demonstrate that in fact, cold weather records dominate hot ones by a ratio of greater than 10:1. Here's how: the Science Blog of the Year will obviously report both class of event impartially as the principles of blog science dictate. Yet a search of the blog for coverage of record cold events gives more than 10 times as many hits as record hot http://tinyurl.com/d4ufwb
    http://tinyurl.com/dh2u38

    QED, I think you'll find. Another nail in the coffin of the fraudulent hoax of AGW.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm curious as to what evidence you actually have that suggests a warming bias? All I see is conjecture and innuendo. If there were to be any bias at all from such an event (and these events are entirely accounted for in the routine data adjustments by the way), if there were any bias it would be a cooling bias due to minor mercury leaks from the big thermometers the satellite is carrying.

    ReplyDelete
  13. coby,

    Don't come on here talking about 'evidence'. We know what the 'evidence' is - it's the same as what you call 'routine data adjustments'. Dropping the freakin satellite will be the justification for making some more 'routine adjustments', precisely on the grounds you suggest - they'll be saying the big thermometers are leaking even when they're not!!! Hey boys, let's trash this satellite so's we can make some routine adjustments later - that's team science for you! As for 'conjecture', that's essential to the scientific method.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "if there were any bias it would be a cooling bias"

    This should be obvious to anyone with half a brain or even less. The satellite fell down, not up, therefore a downward bias in measurements is inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The truth is there to be seen on WUWT for anyone with a genuinely open mind. This article on Bill Steefen, who is a CHIEF meteorologist, is a good example of the real facts that have been covered up by the alarmists:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/27/another-inconvenient-tv-meteorologist/#more-7390

    The Antarctic icecap (which is much bigger than the Arctic icecap) has been growing.Yes, that's right, the ice cap has been growing!!!!

    Now Bill knows his stuff, and he tells us that:

    The Antarctic icecap is over a land continent, not floating over an ocean.Exactly! So, Bill's evidence, which he takes from NSDIC (bet they wish they'd hidden it in a 'deleted' directory, eh?) shows us that the Antarctic continent has actually been getting bigger over this period!!! That's how damned cold it really is!

    ReplyDelete
  16. SimonE,

    "As for 'conjecture', that's essential to the scientific method."

    Yes, this is correct as far as it goes (not far). Conjecture is essential to scientific method, but so are test tubes. A moment with The Google will quickly reveal that this site owner, who calls himself a blog scientist, has never even mentioned a test tube in any of his (cough) essays. He has probably never even been inside of one, ergo never tested one of his hypothesises. How can he judge the likes of Al Gore, who owns several (non-profit) test tube factories?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm sure I noticed a cooling trend today.
    Let's see what the damn satellite says about that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jebediah Arrhenius-Jones28 April 2009 15:49

    People, could we please get back on topic and discuss the fraudulent IPCC.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jebediah Arrhenius-Jones28 April 2009 16:03

    I just want to be clear about my previous post. I do think we had lost focus. But I don't want to limit debate. One of the great things about Denier Depot is that differing opinions and positions are all given the opportunity to be heard and debated, over truly vast ranges of expertise, even including no expertise. As opposed to sites like RealClimate which is more like a strict religion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You know, so called "scientists" really dedicated to the AGW cause would have cushioned the blow with his or her body when the thing fell. You know, take one for God and country, or at least for the gipper. How can you possibly trust these people?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Could this hardware damage in fact be causing a false warming trend? How is Al Gore related to all of this? "

    Is this a parody site? I'm just wondering.

    ReplyDelete
  22. save the trees - eat beaver28 April 2009 21:54

    "Is this a parody site? "

    Oh great. Here come the arrogant latte-lickin' alarmist trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Coby wrote:
    "How can he judge the likes of Al Gore, who owns several (non-profit) test tube factories?"

    Don't forget that Al Gore, pope of the global warming alarmist church, also has a private Jumbo Jet
    and that Gore's house consumes 20 times more energy than the average American small town.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "if there were any bias it would be a cooling bias due to minor mercury leaks from the big thermometers the satellite is carrying."

    Nobody picked up on this deliberate error? The thermometers are actually filled with alcohol, as Coby well knows.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Can anyone direct me to a site, or expound on their own, a comparative study on mankind’s contribution to greenhouse gasses since the dawn of the industrial age (or since he made fire)…. vs. the contribution of just one volcanic eruption such as Mount Saint Helens. Further…. how many contributing volcanic incidents estimated take place throughout the ocean floor never witness by man (if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear…..). Can mankind truly be so vain and foolish not to recognize their insignificance in the matter…?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Percy B. Grout29 April 2009 07:32

    Bob S -

    The seminal paper on this matter is by Khilyuk & Chiligar -

    Recalculating this amount into the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission in grams of CO2, one obtains the estimate 1.003×10000000000000000000 g*, which constitutes less than 0.00022% of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle during geologic history. Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth's climate.(*note: they used an exponential there, which I've written out properly for emphasis).

    You're right, of course - there are one hell of a lot of undersea volcanos that we don't even know about. Where is the heat going from them, huh? The alarmists don't say.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thanks, Percy! That is just the kind of thing I'm looking for. Too bad about the exponential stuff, but still good enough to make any AGW-er cringe with fear.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Conjecture is essential to scientific method, but so are test tubes. A moment with The Google will quickly reveal that this site owner, who calls himself a blog scientist, has never even mentioned a test tube in any of his (cough) essays. He has probably never even been inside of one."

    I'm sure he was conceived in one, the egg impregnated by a sperm loaded with extra IQ genes, which is why our host is able to so brilliantly refute the work of all those thousands of dumb scientists trying to destroy our freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Something has been bothering me about that broken satellite photo - and then it clicked.
    [IMG]http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SatelliteHockeystick.jpg[/IMG]

    Does Al Gore and the IPCC really think we're that stupid?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Percy B. Grout29 April 2009 14:28

    "Does Al Gore and the IPCC really think we're that stupid?"Yes - but their strategy is geared to another age, before Citizen Science could express itself on blogs like this.

    Suggestion to our host - isn't it time for an 'Open Thread'? There really is so much alarmist crap to be dealing with. Whenever we come up with a refutation of their latest distortion they just recycle a long-debunked canard as if it were fresh. It's exhausting, I know, but we need to respond to this stuff immediately (you know the saying about 'a lie spreads around the world before Citizen Science has got its boots on').

    Also, it's been really cold in a few places recently, why aren't we blogging about that? This is a great blog and I don't mean to criticise - just offering ideas. Maybe the best way is just to stick to the solid science as you have been - but sometimes I get so frustrated wanting to put these pinkos in their place.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Arm Chair Climate Expert29 April 2009 19:46

    I agree, don't let up on the blogging on cold weather, we need to be reminded regularly about how cold it really is getting when the denialists say it should be getting warm.

    Also its been warm in some other places so you need to also blog about how warm weather is only warm weather and doesn't prove any long term climate trends.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Can someone give us a visual comparison of the satellite pre- and post-"accident"? What we need is that most scientific of instruments, a blink compator (TM). That would allow us to nail down the entire history of the satellite and its obviously undocumented errors, which are large. If only scientists had access to blink comparators, instead of playing with video-game climate models, they would be able to get some real science done.

    And if this incident was really an accident, well, then a blink comparator would prove it. What is NOAA hiding by witholding the blink comparator from us?

    ReplyDelete
  33. On the other hand, maybe the damaged satellite is obscuring the complexities of Arctic ice cover from the Alarmists. Why do they lack the sophistication to understand that: (1) today's Arctic ice cover is close to long term averages in the general case, but (2) very thin or non-existant when the conversation turns to ice conditions in the 1950s? What else could explain Alarmists' failure to comprehend this obvious point after our blogs have hammered the point home for months now?

    The arrogance of the warmists never fails - I hope they all go to the Arctic tomorrow and freeze to death (most of the time) or fall through thin melting ice (when discussing the 1950s).

    ReplyDelete
  34. Warm weather is warm weather and cold weather is cold weather. It doesn't have anything to do with statistically significant climate trends.

    It doesn't mean much that the majority of the last 7 years of record temperature extremes around the globe have been hot ones...

    http://www.mherrera.org/records.htm

    ... because the principle applies in both directions.

    You can't talk about global climate change unless you talk about a minimum of 20 years (or 30 years, if you subscribe to the climatically significant period recommended by the World Meteorological Organisation), and unless you're talking about large regions or the globe.

    Definition of climate: the aggregate of weather conditions at a given location or region or global for a period of not less than two decades.

    The genuinely curious will ask why and find out. Propagandists will pontificate on this speculatively, ignorantly and cynically, of course. Skeptics are curious. Incurious people who claim to be skeptics are selling something. Ignorance can be cured by curiosity. I don't know if there's a remedy for a lack of curiosity.

    It's been unseasonably cold for the last few days where I live. We recorded the lowest temperature ever in one location of the country (Australia) a few days ago - the only record breaking minimum snce the year started. We also recorded 28 record-breaking hot days so far this year.

    http://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm

    Is this significant with respect to climate? Not much. The globe has warmed for the last 100 years, and 15 of the last 20 years have been the hottest on record, so it's not too suprising that we'd get more record breaking hot days as time goes on, even in 2008, where the global temperature was about the median for the last two decades.

    But climate is trends; these short-term events are weather phenomena.

    ReplyDelete
  35. barry,
    How do you "aggregate weather"? You said yourself that "warm weather is warm weather and cold weather is cold weather", so just how are you supposed to aggregate that? If you aggregate a sunny summer day and a cold snowy winter day, will the snow melt? Or if you aggregate the weather in Italy and Germany, would you get the weather in Switzerland? I think not!
    This business about "aggregate weather" is just a purely fictional construct by those over-paid hippie bureaucrats at the IPCC with their computer-game climate simulations, which are just fancy computer programs. I am a computer programmer and my programs don’t work so I know that “garbage in – garbage out”.
    And what does a trend mean? In Spring the (fictional) global temperature trend is up, but in the evening it is down. So just what is the (fictional) global temperature trend then in a Spring evening? Another fictional “climate science” construct bites the dust!

    ReplyDelete
  36. How about simpler definition of climate- average weather.

    I've always thought that weather was what was going on outside my window and that climate was the weather likely to be going on outside my window.

    I can't say what will be the likely high temp in New Orleans on July 4th (the weather) but I can say it is likely to be hot and humid (the climate.)

    One day's weather doesn't say anything one way or another about an area's climate.

    Every citizen scientist is familiar with the difference between climate and weather aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Another fictional “climate science” construct bites the dust!"

    I'm getting tired of so-called skeptics giving the term a bad name. That quote was laced with certainty and triumphalism. The backbone of skepticism is doubt.

    Lars, your position appears to be "there is no such thing as climate". This could be the ultimate expression of denial on the subject.

    The post above mine gives a good description of climate - almost I used the term 'average'.

    This is one of the first, and a classic, 1948 paper on classifications of climate.

    http://www.unc.edu/courses/2007fall/geog/801/001/www/ET/Thornthwaite48-GeogrRev.pdf

    The word 'climate' predates the IPCC by 700 years. The modern meaning of the term predates the IPCC by 400 years. Different climates were formally classified (as an average of meteorological conditions) at least 50 years before the IPCC, and the WMO proscribed its useful periodicity independently of the IPCC.

    Why 30 years?

    Look it up! Climate basics should not be a mystery to anyone posting on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The ineptitude of climate scientists who are part of the so-called consensus never ceases to amaze me. Unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'd be grateful for some citizen scientists to help me out with this story from the European Space Agency.

    http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMRAVANJTF_index_0.html

    ReplyDelete
  40. Lewis,

    For a partial response, have a look at WUWT's latest: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/30/watch-the-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse-looks-like-current-events-to-me/ .

    Using gif sequences and some interesting technical terminology, the writer has thoroughly and precisely diagnosed the Wilkins melt dynamics, no doubt overturning much established climate science. (Since no one really reads those climate science articles, we can't be expected to know what has and hasn't been studied. But I'm sure this overturns it, if, in fact, it exists.)

    In general, the ice melts and refreezes in cycles of whatever periodicity bolsters our argument. If someone wants to argue about unprecedented current levels of melt, point out to them that "unprecedented" just means pre-satellite, and that obviously ice melt was greater and more extensive before 1979. If they ask why, don't answer - no sense in just taking their bait.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'll wager that the 30-year figure came from scientists' strategy to protect their grant money. If I were on the academic grant gravy train, I'd want someone to wait 30 years before trying to muscle in on my $$ too. I'd be long retired, and some new guy could milk the system.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Percy B. Grout30 April 2009 11:16

    Yup, Cut-n-Paste is spot on. The 30 year period could also be relevant to Al Gore's investment timeframe.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Percy B. Grout30 April 2009 11:31

    Also C'n'P, thanks for the heads-up on that superb WUWT article. This confirms what I already suspected, that we can anticipate seeing Larsen B just stitch itself back together again some time soon.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the loss of the Antarctic peninsula ice shelves brought to light some previously unknown Viking vineyards.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Barry,
    OK there might be something like climate, but it is a very subjective notion. What is warm to me might be cold to you. And how can one possibly calculate the average temperature from millions of thermometers (all of which are quite imprecise) each day, 365 days a year? According to the law of large numbers, that is simply not possible: the errors would be too large. But pro-AGW climate scientists obviously don't understand basic statistics - just look at the infamous ice hockey stick.

    And I don't care about what your pro-AGW scientists write in their pro-AGW journals. It is obvious that so-called "peer review" is only a way to enforce a dictatorial orthodoxy. If Gallileo had lived today, he would never have been published in any fancy "journal". Thank God for blogs like this one, where true science can be discussed by true sceptics who don't swallow the propaganda of the IPCC and Gore inquisition. I don't care where something is written - the important thing is that it is true.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Percy B. Grout30 April 2009 12:09

    I've also been reading Indur M. Goklany's amazing articles at WUWT, which I thoroughly recommend. The inescapable conclusion from his work, which is comprehensively backed up by references to previous papers he's written, is that we will be clearly better off when the average temperature is +4C - in fact it's actually much better not to stop at +3.3C but to drive straight through to +4C. Let's be honests here and recognise that some of us have previously been sceptical about the climate going to +4C. In the light of this work, though, we can confidently reject the tax-raising measures of the alarmist bed-wetters, knowing that we're taking the moral course in driving forward to a better world. We have the well-being of the most vulnerable right at the heart of our fight to generate the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Percy B Grout said:
    "we will be clearly better off when the average temperature is +4C - in fact it's actually much better not to stop at +3.3C but to drive straight through to +4C."

    I'd have to agree. Living here on the 54th parallel, all the greenery does get a little tiresome after a while.
    Whereas most people would agree the majority of northern towns would surely benefit from having a simplified but dramatic desert landscape.
    I'd never dream of buying anything from local farms anyway, so no loss there.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Percy B. Grout30 April 2009 12:49

    chek,

    The remarkable thing about Goklany's work is that he shows that rain in the future will fall where people really need it, whereas now it just dumps itself wherever it fancies and is mostly wasted.

    I agree with you about local farms - I shop at supermarkets, where the products and the prices are the same whichever part of the country you're in, so it really doesn't matter if some farmer or other has a bad season. That's the miracle of capitalism!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Sludgehammer for the truth30 April 2009 15:22

    Wow, I've gotta check out that Goklany stuff. I have to admit I was worried that we might linger at +3.3C for a while. That would be an epic mistake. And greenhouse studies show clearly that anything under about 700 ppm is big-time inefficient as far as CO2 fert goes. Why don't these wackjobs have the guts to come right out and say they want people to starve and freeze to death.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Percy B. Grout30 April 2009 15:41

    Sludgehammer,

    Yeah, you're right to worry about that +3.3C figure - Goklany shows that's what we could get stuck at if we go for the sort of half-hearted approach represented in the 'A2 scenario'. What we need to get the best outcome is the highest fossil fuel useage possible (A1F1 scenario) - this really delivers in terms of cutting down mortality rates and getting the rainfall where it's needed. Everyone gets to be rich this way too, which is a nice bonus! Check it out!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Lars,

    "OK there might be something like climate, but it is a very subjective notion. What is warm to me might be cold to you."

    I recommend you read the paper I cited on climate classification. Do anything to educate yourself on the matter. Don't just make stuff up. You're not anti-knowledge too, are you?

    I cited that paper because it doesn't use temperature as a primary metric (it focuses on the hydrological cycle, but not exclusively). Expand your thinking.

    "And how can one possibly calculate the average temperature from millions of thermometers (all of which are quite imprecise) each day, 365 days a year? According to the law of large numbers, that is simply not possible: the errors would be too large."

    I'm not a qualified statistician, but I know that this is wrong. In this case, the law of large numbers (a large data pool, really) actually helps constrain the errors. There are problems with thermometers, but, unless there are systemic problems (and there are), which are more easily adjusted than individual ones, the balance of errors will even out if the data pool is large enough.

    By analogy, we already know the 'average', or odds, of tossing a coin. Toss it ten times and you could easily wind up with a result that is far different from what we already know of the probability (50/50). Toss the coin ten thousand times and the result will be very, very close to 50/50. In this case, as with thermometers, the more data (coin tosses), the better. This falls down if many thermometers are biased one way (rather than errors swinging each way per thermometer), but it is this systemic error that is specifically looked for by people doing the measuring.

    And its not just the individual thermometers. Nearby thermometer reading are compared. This is one way urban heat bias is weeded out. Surrounding rural stations are used to compare. None of it perfect, but not useless either.

    "And I don't care about what your pro-AGW scientists write in their pro-AGW journals."

    As I didn't cite the IPCC or any other AGW source, I don't know what you're talking about. The climate classification paper? That's got nothing to do with global warming. At all. It was written in 1948, before the theory got traction.

    "Thank God for blogs like this one, where true science can be discussed by true sceptics who don't swallow the propaganda of the IPCC and Gore inquisition."

    True science? You've got to be joking.

    Virtually nobody here has a clue about climate science. They've gone to the skeptical blogs BEFORE they acquainted themselves properly with the mainstream view. NOBODY picked up on the satellite termometer mentions upthread. Someone even replied to the concept as if it was true. Satellites don't measure global temperature by thermometer at all! Not one 'skeptic' here knew this was a (deliberate) falsehood. No one bothered to check if "satellite thermometers have leaks". No one seems to care about educating themselves in the most basic ways, instead of getting tertiary information from beloved 'sceptical' sites. That's just pitiful.

    I've read much on the hockey stick controversy, thanks. A TRUE sceptic, having read all the material, would mark it 'unresolved'. But there are no true skeptics here. There are only believers. Most 'believe' AGW is a hoax. Most post sarcastic absolutes - it's a hoax, it's a lie, it's all a big conspiracy. But not ONE 'skeptic' questions these assertions, as a TRUE sceptic is REQUIRED to do because they must "question everything". I'm here quoting the blog owner's own words.

    This is a propaganda mill posing as a serious sceptical stie. No one is doing any genuine researching on BOTH sides. It's all one-sided for adherents here. They only visit WUWT and climateaudit and ICECAP and the 'sceptical' blogs, and only ever go to mainstream sources if the sceptical sites provide a link. Maybe.

    The very least any so-called sceptic here should do is read the IPCC AR4 cover to cover. If you don't even know the science you're supposedly sceptical about - it's not scepticism you're practising. It's your own brand of orthodoxy. You know, the orthodoxy that advises:

    "don't care about what your pro-AGW scientists write in their pro-AGW journals"

    I AM a sceptic. The main reason I'm here is because I can't stand to see scepticism brandished by close-minded propagandists - WHO DON'T EVEN READ THE SOURCE MATERIAL - like it's some kind of token that gives their views credence.

    When I see some genuine inquiry, when people have more questions than answers, then I know I'm looking at sceptics. But what we have here - and I quote the blog owner again - is proud "climate deniers".

    And do you see even the fatuousness of that phrase? Not "AGW deniers". Climate deniers. People who deny that climate exists.

    You should all slap yourselves across the face, start from scratch, and read widely. I'm not here pushing AGW. Not at all. I'm pushing self-education and REAL SCEPTICISM. You have to doubt your OWN opinions, too. Get it?

    BTW - satellites measure atmospheric temperature by monitoring spectral radiance. The data is then processed to infer temperature, and there are various methods, which is why RSS and UAH get different results with exactly the same raw satellite data. Satellite temps are imperfect, too, but satellites have better coverage than surface stations.

    Here's a primer - specifically regarding the topic of this thread.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

    ReplyDelete
  52. Cut-n-Paste1 May 2009 11:28

    barry,

    We know that climate "science" is so untrustworthy that there's no point in trying to indoctrinate ourselves with it. Don't believe everything you read barry, unless it's a vague innuendo on this blog. And puh-leez don't give us a wikipedia reference. Anyone can write anything there, even William Connolley!

    And you must know that peer-review is largely a political process whereby status quo prevails in the service of continued grant money and fame. I much prefer private vanity press outlets like E&E. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Well barry, you are not the only AGW-supporter who is panicking at the power of sceptic science blogging! (Also check out the comment section on that link).

    ReplyDelete
  54. Barry you are welcome to debate, but please reduce the warmist rhetoric. Accusations like "And do you see even the fatuousness of that phrase? Not 'AGW deniers'. Climate deniers. People who deny that climate exists." are uncalled for. We do NOT primarily deny that the climate exists, we mainly question how much it is really changing. Do you have any proof that the satellite record is justified?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Lars nice find. Notice they don't provide any scientific defense of the satellite record and instead resort to name-calling this blog a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  56. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Having read the Mishap Investigation report and subsequent articles on progress in repairing the damage, I find the leading questions posed in the top post to be in keeping with the aims of this blog. That is, the commentary is strong on contrarianism - but entirely inadequate on substance.

    Reviewing the sequence of events.

    * The satellite falls off its mooring in 2003.
    * The accident is investigated.
    * The Mishap Investigation Report describes the conditions that led to the accident and recommends changes to procedure and policy.
    * There is no information in the linked report about the damage caused. That is contained in an appendix, which I was unable to locate.
    * The accident delays the launch for 5 years.
    * In that time the craft systems are repaired and tested numerous times. The advice on each test (in the last 2 years), is positive. Systems are green.
    * The launch is later scheduled for Feb 4 2009.
    * The launch occurs February 6 2009.

    I will now respond to specific comments in the top post.

    "Are the self-proclaimed IPCC aware that such a sensitive instrument suffered heavy hardware damage prior to launch?"

    The phrase 'self-proclaimed' is pointless, argumentative and wrong. The author's agenda is already clear, and skepticism is not it.

    [edit] (Inferno, I see that you wrote the top post. Clearly, your aproach is not "open-minded, cautious, weighing things evenly and unencumbered by cynicism."

    The NASA and NOAA scientists who worked on the IPCC AR4 would very likely be aware of the mishap. Probably many other space scientists and meteorologists, also, like the people at Remote Sensing Systems and UAH (Spencer and Christy), who rely on data from the Microwave Sounding Units, and any other institute receiving data from NOAA craft. The accident was a signficant event and sgnificantly delayed the launch.

    In any case, the point is moot, because it doesn't mater if the 'IPCC' was aware of the mishap. They would presume that the instruments on the craft were working normally at launch. That's NASA's job, not IPCC.

    "How does this affect said instrument's ability to measure temperature to tenths of a degree accuracy?"

    Here the author of the top post directly implies that the craft was launched without repairs.

    "Could this hardware damage in fact be causing a false warming trend?"

    The implication becomes an assumption.

    "How is Al Gore related to all of this?"

    Indeed. The author here invokes the climate variant of Godwin's Law. Gore has nothing to do with this topic.

    "So many unanswered questions tell us that there is plenty of doubt and unsettled science here, which is what we seek as blog scientists."

    The questions are unanswered, not because there is no information, but because the author could not be bothered following up on what happened after the accident and accident report. PLAINLY they did not, otherwise they would not ask if instrumentation on a craft launched 3 MONTHS AGO might have had any influence on a 'warming trend'.

    If there is any meat at all to this argument, it is to be found in an investigation of the repairs and subsequent testing.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Well, I didn't do a good job of being a neutral commenter. My frustration got the best of me. But the points I made are absent any agenda with regard to AGW. A skeptic might say "inconclusive, but no specific reason to believe the damage was not properly repaired." Any speculation beyond that is agenda-driven.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Correction - the launch was delayed for one year, not five. It was 5 years between ground accident and actual launch.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Inferno, I deleted the post before mine on the satellite ground accident because it was too long and I'd already made many of the points. However, there are a couple of points I'd like to clear up.

    "please reduce the warmist rhetoric"

    Please point out anything I have written that is 'warmist'. I have not pled a case either for or against AGW. I am agnostic on the subject.

    "Accusations like "And do you see even the fatuousness of that phrase? Not 'AGW deniers'. Climate deniers. People who deny that climate exists." are uncalled for."

    I know what is meant by the phrase, but I think it is worth pointing out that it is very ineptly put. I strongly suggest it demonstrates a lack of intellectual rigour, and as a result I take exception to the self-awarded title of 'skeptic' by the author. I am not here to push a climate change agenda, pro or con. I am here because I revere skepticism. I am pushing intellectual rigour and honesty.

    "We do NOT primarily deny that the climate exists, we mainly question how much it is really changing."

    I would be inclined to question that with the contributors here, but I see no evidence of genuine, open inquiry. In my deleted post, I asked if your approach to this subject is "open-minded, cautious, weighing things evenly and unencumbered by cynicism."

    "Do you have any proof that the satellite record is justified?"

    No. I'm not an expert. I have, however, read some on the subject. I tend to think there is a fair degree of competence and cross-checking. To whit, there are three main satellite temperature records (the third is a Russian project, abandoned in 2005). Although they use different methodologies, their results are similar. Between them, there is a high degree of correlation on the direction of temperature anomalies (temp up/temp down, month to month, year to year). There are differences in amplitude and trends, but the overall cross-check sugests the records are fairly robust. They also show significant correlation with the surface records, but here there is greater discrepancy WRT direction of amplitude and degree of amplitude degree of amplitude, particularly for anomalously hot and cold months/years. Though there is some divergence between the amplitude of trends over the last 30 years, the trends all point in the same direction - warmer (over that period).

    Perfect? Not at all. Useful? I think so. Hopefully we'll get better at it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Barry I am both a skeptic and a denier.

    The burden of proof is on the warmists to mathematically prove that all the damage to the satellite was 100% repaired, it's not on us to prove that it wasn't. It's not possible to prove a negative anyway.

    Even if you accomplished this task there are lots of other questions like how can a satellite really measure temperature? I mean really.

    "Although they use different methodologies, their results are similar."

    Both UAH and RSS use the damaged satellite. Why doesn't the University of Alabama in Huntsville launch their own satellite? Why are they relying on a potentially faulty damaged one?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Barry,
    As I have already shown, the warmist hippies are so desperately afraid about the truth getting out about their fraudulent global warming scam that they are even calling this website a joke and satire. I'm sure that other leading climate science sites like JunkScience and WUWT got the same disgraceful treatment by the AGW horde. That is unassailable proof that we are on to something serious!

    At least, it is to your credit that you don't take that easy path but try (although not very successfully) to discuss the issue. If you read this blog carefully (start with the "About part" up to the right), you might also find enlightenment. Because we know the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Percy B. Grout2 May 2009 13:21

    Barry,

    You need to take a chill pill :-)

    I think you're sounding emotional, which is not a good state to be in when seeking to take an objective view of science. You'll notice that most of the posters here (the exceptions really being the warmists) do not get emotional, even in the face of ad hominem attacks. We accept robust discussion and do not engage in ad hom attacks ourselves, even when they're coming from bed-wetting alarmist trolls who are so wedded to their warmist religion that they can't distinguish between the truth and the gross distortions of Goreist thought control. Please try to learn by example, and approach discussion in the sober fashion that you will find characterises this site.

    And also, please follow Lars's links :-)

    ReplyDelete
  64. Percy

    You say (to Barry):

    "I think you're sounding emotional, which is not a good state to be in when seeking to take an objective view of science. You'll notice that most of the posters here (the exceptions really being the warmists) do not get emotional, even in the face of ad hominem attacks. We accept robust discussion and do not engage in ad hom attacks ourselves"

    Then follow immediately with:

    "even when they're coming from bed-wetting alarmist trolls who are so wedded to their warmist religion that they can't distinguish between the truth and the gross distortions of Goreist thought control. Please try to learn by example, and approach discussion in the sober fashion that you will find characterises this site."

    Do you understand how hypocritical you sound?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Cut n Paste to Lewis:

    "In general, the ice melts and refreezes in cycles of whatever periodicity bolsters our argument. If someone wants to argue about unprecedented current levels of melt, point out to them that "unprecedented" just means pre-satellite, and that obviously ice melt was greater and more extensive before 1979. If they ask why, don't answer - no sense in just taking their bait."

    What?

    ReplyDelete
  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  67. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Percy - fair call om my tone. My passion is to do with intellectual rigour and that is what I am challenging at this self-described 'science' site.

    Nobody is owed an explanation if they don't take the trouble to research their own claims. On this thread at least, it is painfully obvious that the participants are content to ask questions they think are damaging to the theory of AGW without taking steps themselves to inform themselves properly on the topic. This isn't skepticism. It's contrarianism.

    Also, inquiry here begins with the conclusion. That is absolutely NOT the way to go about investigating any subject, and certainly not as a skeptic.

    When you say...

    "they're coming from bed-wetting alarmist trolls who are so wedded to their warmist religion that they can't distinguish between the truth and the gross distortions of Goreist thought control"

    how on earth could anyone consider your approach skeptical? Your words here demonstrate an absolute conclusion, that you've made your mind up, and I suspect your reasoning follows from the precepts - that global warming theory is a 'religion', for example.

    A true skeptic doesn't hold a view and then try to winnow an argument to prove it. What you treat as a conclusion, the skeptic makes a question and tests it. Also, there is nothing whatsoever neutral about the phrases "bed-wetting, "alarmist", "troll", "warmist religion", and "gross distortions of Goreist thought". If you wish to teach me by example, drop the scathing rhetoric. None of those comments are "sober". And you have laid claim to the "truth". I am a skeptic, and such absolute conviction will never pass my lips.

    This thing about Gore. He isn't a scientist, he's a politician. When you introduce him, you are talking politics, not science. No one who endorses AGW cites Gore to substantiate the science (make sure you understand this statement properly if you feel inclined to answer it). If you want to talk about Gore's influence on public perceptions as a public figure, fine. But that's a completely different thing to the science underlying AGW theory. If you can't separate science and politics then there's no point trying to discuss the science with you. Mentioning Gore ia a foolish approach in a discussion of the science.

    Lars, on this thread, I will stick to the topic or talk about approaches to it. All too often a topic is dropped in favour of any number of unrelated talking points (like Gore). I am VERY familiar with the debate, the players and the acrimony, thanks. We're talking satellites and skepticism here. I may elect to discuss other topics in the appropriate places.

    "Because we know the truth."

    Just more evidence of a conclusion-based inquiry. This is NOT skepticism. This is another kind of orthodoxy. No true skeptic EVER claims they know the truth.

    Inferno,

    "I am both a skeptic and a denier."

    That is a contradiction. You cannot be both. Either you question AGW theory and keep some doubt about your own opinions (skeptic), or you flatly believe that it is false or exaggerated (denier).

    "The burden of proof is on the warmists to mathematically prove that all the damage to the satellite was 100% repaired"

    No.

    No one on these threads (unless a technician directly involved with NOAA 19 is participating) is able to 'prove' anything about the satellite accident. NASA claims that the satellite and components were functioning properly when it launched - 5 years after the acident. Your argument is with the program technicians. No one else has the access (and likely the qualifications) to answer on their behalf.

    "there are lots of other questions like how can a satellite really measure temperature? I mean really."

    It's not worth having a conversation on this until you make an effort to learn even a little of the subject. Do you actually know, for example, how temperature IS (said to be) measured by satellites? Not knowing does not pass for skepticism. It is simply ignorance. When you've learned a bit about the method/s, then you may attempt to critique them usefully.

    "Why doesn't the University of Alabama in Huntsville launch their own satellite?"

    You can't be serious. The University does not have the funds (billions of dollars), technical expertise or facilities to construct and/or launch a satellite. It's like asking why a school that teaches automotive repairs doesn't manufacture their own cars. Space missions are some of the most expensive endeavours on the planet.

    "Why are they relying on a potentially faulty damaged one?"

    They are not. They are relying on NASA's (and Lockheed's) technical proficiency to send up a satellite that works. NASA has told them the craft is A-ok. Again, your inquiry must turn to NASA, not the IPCC, not 'warmists'.

    It is an egregious skepticism that supposes NASA would allow a satellite to be launched without proper checks. And particular care would have been taken in this instance when the craft was damaged on the ground. This one was rebuilt. NASA makes repairs to satellites in space, successfully. This one was on the ground for five whole years to be repaired. Lockheed Martin agreed to pay for the repairs out of the profits they expected to make from the use of the satellite. The pre-launch testing of the instruments on a spacecraft takes years, and, according to NASA, the components functioned properly at launch. I think the onus is on you to prove that NASA, which has a proven record of launching many satellites of different types, which have worked properly in all sorts of easily testable ways (for example, they stay in orbit for years tranmitting information, television and intenational cellphone transmissions successfully) failed to repair this one properly.

    Finally, a test of your intellectual honesty.

    Now that you know the rocket was launched 3 months ago, will you update (not delete) your comment that the supposedly damaged instruments might be responsible for a 'warming trend'?

    If you wish to investigate the matter, this is a link to source.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NOAA-N-Prime/main/index.html

    The craft has provided 2 months worth of data. At the time of your post, only one month's (March) data since the launch had been published by the satellite record team (RSS posted data for April yesterday). It is not possible for it to have influenced any 'warming trend'. If you are an honest skeptic, I expect that you will confirm for yourself the launch date and correct the misguided speculation in the top post for all to see.

    ReplyDelete
  69. So Barry, if you are so clever, how come you have nothing to say about the following disproofs against global warming that have been adressed on this eminent skeptical blog?
    (1) If there is global warming, how come there are snowstorms? In other words, global warming does not exist!
    (2) How can CO2 atoms, which are just 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
    compared to the Sun, control the global climate? In other words, global warming is against the laws of physics!
    (3) CO2 levels were 2000ppm in 1200AD, during the medieval warming period when Vikings grew grapes in the lush Greenland jungles and they built cathedrals in Germany and England. Why would less than half of those levels be dangerous to humans today, when we have air conditioning? In other words, global warming is not dangerous.
    (4) Why should we trust the satellite temperature data, when the satellites are broken and there is some much rubbish in space reflecting heat? In other words, there is no evidence!
    (5) Why should we trust Al Gore, who invented global warming, when he has a giant air plane and a house that consumes the energy of twenty hospitals (leaving the patients to freeze in the winter). In other words, it is just a scam to fill the pockets of Al Gore and other leftist hippies and third-world kleptocrats!
    (OK, point 5 hasn't been addreddes in the blog yet)

    ReplyDelete
  70. Barry,

    Please follow the link that Lars has given already and read to the bottom of the comments! Here it is again:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/04/as-arthur-c-rabett-said-about-denialism.html

    ReplyDelete
  71. Well, I followed the link and sure enough there's nothing about satellites. I said hello there anyway if you'd care to look, but it's a hot-bed of jeering monkeys and no sincere participant should bother with it.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Percy B. Grout3 May 2009 14:39

    Barry,

    You've engaged in one of your long rants again. Tell me, do you think that if 'one of us' were to post such an attack upon the integrity of the residents at 'Real Climate' ('Climate Science from Fully Paid Members of the Climate Scam Team') we would have our post appearing in full? I think not - and that is the difference here. We encourage debate, even with those who are jacking off at the thought of 'green taxes' funding the socialist global conspiracy takeover thing.

    I have to correct you (and others) on your understanding of the term ad hominem. I have not criticised your qualities as an individual, though frankly they seem to be rather lacking, I have simply challenged what you have said. An ad hominem attack is, for example, when warmists raise the lack of qualifications held by anybody who questions their creed.

    Please try to put your prejudices to one side and read this blog with an open mind. I also recommend to you without reservation the blog 'Wots Up With That Then?' (this is run by an ex-TV meteorologist, so no question there of qualification, I'd say!), where the breaking news is that the University of Alabama has been proven to be complicit in covering up the global warming fraudulent conspiracy on account of them having found someone to be not guilty of the fraudulent conspiracy scam which someone else accused them of. If that doesn't make you pause for thought, then what will?

    I once had a very intimate relationship with a woman who worked in advertising. Believe me, when the TRUTH becomes a hostage to personal desire, then there is no end to how much it might cost us.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Much sound advice there, Percy. My post at the other place was quite relevatory, I thought, but it's been deleted. Because of this outrageous action, typical of the imperious nature of the pro-AGW side, I'm actually considering taking a stand against that church.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Barry,

    I was once also a firm believer in AGW, and would gladly have paid all my earnings in carbon taxes to stave off the impending doom. But when I learned that Al Gore was committed for defrauding English children, my doubts started to grow. Eventually I managed to break free from the fetters of eco-talibanist thought control and learn the truth. Carbon dioxide atoms are not dangerous – on the contrary they are plant food. Carbon dioxide is the gas of life!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Percy B. Grout5 May 2009 13:18

    I see that over at Lucia's blog ('The Blackboard') they're getting on to discussing the issues of satellite siting etc. that we've already covered here. Better late than never! -

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/uah-april-colder-than-march/

    Basically the argument, entirely properly, is that RSS (which has reported warmer than UAH this month) is biased high on account of siting issues, TOBS, etc. In other months we can be sure that UAH will take its turn at being biased high for similar reasons. It's obvious enough that the warmist agenda is at work here.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I have a question.
    Why, above the middle fake fabric turbofan design, does that satellite have what looks very much like the clock that used to reside above the fire on my grandmother's mantlepiece?

    I would expect NASA of all people to have embraced the digital age.
    Who is meant yo keep it wound up?
    The ISS?
    Or is just "window dressing" to make it look somewhat technical?

    Between that and the fake fabric fans (I expect they look convincing from a distance to impress the Russians in some grainy monochrome space-spy from a submarine kinda way), I'm not impressed.

    I want to see tax dollars spent on Industrial Light and Magic type Hollywood effects, not the local community theatre group's props.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Have we ever owned the Coach bags ? we wish to disagree about the Coach Ergo stamp. You know Coach Legacy essentially get improved the some-more time restorative the glove the improved it does not have it to the uncover area level. Coach Madison is continually shop-worn upon sole during poignant prices.

    These stainless animate Breitling Watches sale has a case bore of 44mm is baptizing aggressive up to 330Ft and the clear cambered azure is blaze proof. Punch Breitling Windrider colors of dejected and tremendous are available. Other appearance cover Bentley Motors unidirectional Alternating Ratcheted, automated movement, brooch deployment, Alarm and date displays below 12 O’clock Position Navitimer Watches Windrider Crosswind 18kt Yellow Gold Animate Atramentous Men’s cheap Breitling Watches is addition archetypal in this series.

    Buying Hogan scarpe that are appropriate for the activity that will take place Hogan scarpe uomo is necessary for proper foot protection. Hogan scarpe donna are perfect for going to the beach though, since only the bottoms of feet need to be protected from the hot sand. Outdoor activities are much more enjoyable when the proper hogan donna actually fits correctly too.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I’ve read a number of the content articles in your web site now, and I absolutely like your fashion of website. I included it to my favorites website directory and must be coming again quickly. Bear in mind to take a look at my web site too and inform me what you think.

    ReplyDelete
  79. If a person really wants to measure temperature the best he/she can do is to look for professional help, because it is not as easy as it sounds.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I just want to be clear about my previous post. I do think we had lost focus. But I don't want to limit debate. One of the great things about Denier Depot is that differing opinions and positions are all given the opportunity to be heard and debated, over truly vast ranges of expertise, even including no expertise. As opposed to sites like RealClimate which is more like a strict religion.

    ReplyDelete
  81. In any case, thisDiablo 3 Gold Arctic sea glaciers has been plainly leaner with 1958 - we
    D3 Gold realize this particular because of a photo upon WUWT of any boat which was cause a location where it could surface. Which leads myself to inquire precisely why NSIDC D3 ITEmsand Serrize, assume Arctic ocean ice is definitely slimmer right now ofCheap Guild Wars 2 Gold computer seemed to be where and when most of these submarines come up?

    ReplyDelete
  82. If you would like estimate temp the right he/she will do will be to consider specialist, currently not as easy as it may sound tatu

    ReplyDelete
  83. I will spare no efforts in doing things WOW Power Leveling, the master of a single trade can support a family. The master of seven trades cannot support himself wow gold, No one has ever been or will ever be strong enough to take our freedom away from us Sell WOW Gold.

    I know someone in the world is waiting for me, although I've no idea of who he is. But I feel happy every day for this 4story Gold, If a woman is not sexy, she needs emotion; if she is not emotional, she needs reason 4story Luna, in this world, only those men who really feel happy can give women happiness 4story Gold.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Mexico began their VIP Fut Coins contest in Panama on the attack, at least on paper. Andres Guardado, Javier Chicharito Hernandez and FIFA Ultimate Team Coins Gio dos Santos were all on from the start. The Panamanians, much improved from previous years, were not in a generous mood, however Click Here.

    ReplyDelete
  85. If you are worried for the debts that how you will recover it, then don’t be worried of this problem because here is the site which provides easy debt payment loan, which can easily be recovered. The loan provides easy installments by which the customer feels quite easy to pay them.

    ReplyDelete
  86. If you are worried for the debts that how you will recover it, then don’t be worried of this problem because here is the site which provides easy debt payment loan, which can easily be recovered. The loan provides easy installments by which the customer feels quite easy to pay them.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Great info. I love all the posts, I really enjoyed, I would like more information about this, Because it is very nice., Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I?m not sure where you are getting your information, however great topic. I must spend some time learning much more or figuring out more. Thank you for fantastic info I was looking for this information for my mission. become ordained online

    ReplyDelete
  89. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  90. now i know How To Measure Temperature, good work.
    logodivine

    ReplyDelete