PaulG.

Forgive me but I don't have image editing software at home that allows me to crop an image so that I can illustrate this better. I reviewed the video again. Right around 1:47 is the bottom graph by itself and you can read the scale. The bottom graph (Antarctica) y scale is "temp difference from today in C" (emphasis mine) whereas the top graph is actual temp data from Greenland. I don't know why the author of the video would use one graph using one kind of data from one part of the world and then use another graph from another kind of data from another part of the world, and attempt to compare the two without more clarification. ????

That hasn't happened yet. But if it did, yes, I would probably switch over to a typedef enum state machine if I started creeping towards, say around 10 states or more. Whatsamatta? You never had to re-write your own code before?

That's a classic. I learned that as a kid and still laugh. Except that one time my mother overheard me tell it and she washed my mouth out with soap.

Indeed. Large applications built around the QMH can be nightmares, but there is nothing more useful when you need something quick and dirty. I most often use the QMH when my vi starts taking on too much room on my screen but it wouldn't make logical sense to create a subVI. I whip up a QMH then just start adding states.

Can't see the scales. As you posted them they are too small. But from everything I've come to understand about these scales they are based upon a median and not actual temperature. I don't think we are talking about average temperatures from Antartica, but medians. I could be wrong. I would like to see the data on a readable scale.

Wasn't that fun?

Indeed. Mostly. With the exception of a few off-topic juvenile "tickle party" posters and no-life zombie-watchers we have an exceptional collective here. I was hoping to tap into that collective. That said, I will take what you said to heart. But I must respond later. I'm leaving to be with my family for Christmas. But I will be back next week. Happy Holidays to you and yours, Francois.

When did we all decide to forget our grade school biology? CO2 is NOT a pollutant. We exhale it. Plants need CO2 to survive. And it does NOT cause the green house effect. In fact, higher concentrations of CO2 can cause an increase in the amount of global vegetation. That has happened in earth's past.

+3 for this? Here? Have you bothered to read this thread? I'm not trying to make this political. Science goes beyond politics. You are making this political. Again, read the thread. You are repeating yourself. I'll repeat myself: read the thread. Just how can data be "laughable"? If you don't want ice core data then please feel free to find something else and present it here. And if the way the data are presented is "laughable" all I can say is graphs are the simplest way I know how to present such data. If you need something even simpler to wrap your head around please help us out. Again, please feel free to post data with what you would consider "proper source and justification". From everything I have gathered from my critics so far: GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

Me, too. When I think of "nerd" I think of Weird Al Yankovich in "White and Nerdy", Bill Gates ... and one of my nephews. I don't know about Al or Bill but my nephew (he describes himself as a "nerd") is extremely popular with the ladies. He wants to be a nerd, that's fine with me. Geeks are geeks. Pencil-neck chicken head biter-offers. (or something like that)

I believe the graphs came from this video I posted earlier. I figured that is why raw data was deleted. The "hockey stick" probably took a nose-dive over the last 10 years and any idiot with half a brain could see that in a graph. That's why graphs work best for me.

OK. Just look at the pictures. The pictures are the graphs. I know graphs are boring and are not as much fun as pictures of bunnies and puppies and kittens but they are still PICTURES. OK?

Stay 0n t0pic. Thanks. And the cabal has infiltrated Wiki. If you still believe in global warming watch this video. How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

+1, James. Points 1 and 2: This interesting lecture from a scientist at James Cook University, Australia. It's only 10 minutes long but IMO Professor Bob Carter gives on of the most succinct and profound 10 minutes I've ever watched questioning what is now the GW/"CC" scam. The earth may actually be COOLING!! "All scientists are skeptics." At least I thought they were at one time. Point 3: Nuclear is the answer for the short term and near-long (100 years) term. Fusion after that. Point 4: Helping the poor is noble and good. I firmly believe that the vast majority of Americans do so - generously. And I also firmly believe that none of us need our government to tell us where to help the poor with stolen confiscatory taxes. Point 5: I'm sure the 0bama administration and the rest of the planetary watermelons ("green" on the outside, red on the inside) expressed a collective "DOH!" when hearing this. Looking forward to more honest bantering with you as your time permits. Thanks. I don't get much of that from your side of the fence. This just in ...

Bowie played a great Tesla but I thought The Prestige was boring. I'm hoping someone will do a movie about the supposed correlation between the Tunguska event and Tesla testing his Death Ray.

New Scientist becomes Non Scientist. The scandal grows. ... and grows.

Of course "junior" people are allowed to voice opinions. Don't be ridiculous. But when a junior posts here while admitting that the senior arrived at the same opinion just makes the junior look like the senior's sycophant/toady.

This one is unlocked? Cool. I'm curious to see how this works. This is a great utility. I have it on my desktop and use it often.

Can't say I have done the research. Few have, unfortunately. And the only way to get the data to do so is if you are part of the GG/"CC" Elect. That fact alone should tell you that the mantra from the GG/"CC" chicken littles is coming from a religious cult, not from scientists. You don't need to be a scientist to figure that out.

"NASA-Gate". Another reason for the world to hate us.

I don't think it is "disingenuous" at all. I think the point is this: everyone who signed this petition demonstrated that they are intelligent enough to get a degree in engineering. Don't all engineers understand the basics of the scientific method? Dear God, I hope so. The powers-that-be in the GW/"CC" debate have thrown the basics of the scientific method into the toilet. And just who gets to say someone is "qualified" to have an opinion on global climate studies? (THERE. I think I gave this science a proper name! ) Al Gore? UN bureaucrats? President 0bama? Please. Mankind has been through this before. Galileo comes to mind. Some day we will come back to the time where most of us believe the earth revolves around the sun and not around some monstrous political agenda. Give yourself and the rest of us a little more credit.

Gore Sounds New Alarm

The report was derived from research at the University of East Anglia, NASA and the British Met Office, which is responsible for weather forecasts in the United Kingdom. All three organizations have refused to release all or part of their raw data. The public only has access to "value added" data that have been corrected and massaged.

It's what happens when the Disciples of the Church of Global Warming, We Mean, "Climate Change" go off-topic but heathen apostates on the other side are not allowed to. And when you try to respond they get hysterical and you are accused of being "mean" and "offensive" and "attacking" someone "personally".