|
Parent Article: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
|
Hidden with code "Duplicate post" |
|
Re: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
by Peter K Anderson
hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Mar 2006
|
It would seem Pat N that you where trying to make your supposition of 'human influenced climate change' from 'greenhouse effects' in some manner more 'relevant' than you could validly show, especially with your 'running averages' even after your methodology in that 'numeracy' was highlighted numerous times by numerous people as being deficient in terms of its capability of producing a correlated 'trend' regarding 'climate'.
It seems Pat N. that your entire effort has been towards having your invalid inferences make alterations to various existing systematic methodology to include your personally opinioned 'factors' that you OPINION are influencing 'hydrology' in various regions.
Instead of 'showing' "Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.)" a presentation, you should perhaps have been listening instead to you EMPLOYER at that time.
To remind you Pat N. of yet another thread you have 'produced':-
-----
http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php
"Hydrologist said climate change impacts hydrology, thus career in river prediction with NOAA/NWS ends" -Due to my position that climate change is impacting hydrology in the Mississippi River, Great Lakes and Red River of the North basins, my career of 29 years in river forecasting with the National Weather Service (NWS) ended on July 15, 2005.
..
..
For additional information, please see the link to the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center article: "Climate change impacts on hydrology of Upper Midwest: Disclosure of a government agency and career ends" by pat n (26 Feb 2006)
at:
www.ucimc.org/newswire/update/index.php
Your supportive comments would be appreciated.
-----
It would seem Pat N. that you could not get those of SCIENCE to listen to you. This was due to the situation SO MANY OTHERS had explained to you; your 'methodology' is INADEQUATE to allow you to produce VALID INFERENCE of 'climate change' due to 'greenhouse warming'.
You where NOT intent on 'getting on with your work' as it is OBVIOUS that was NOT the case, you where dismissed Pat N. NOT for making comment, but for it seems trying to have "making comment" become your 'employment'. SO you where dismissed.
You have woven such a large 'net' Pat N., it is NOT unreasonable that one such as I who spends time looking FOR questionable situations on and within the internet, will start seeing these "sad sac' threads. Then there are the' supportive' identities making 'suggestions' that others should 'support Pat', like those from Mike Neuman (again from Yahoo!).
If it had NOT been for your (still maintained) 'elitist' attitude within Yahoo! PAt N., I would not indeed have BOTHERED further with these NUMEROUS threads you start, as it is I began to notice indications of activites that would NOT be considered 'proper'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
