An inconvenient half-truth

[KE5FRF]

Last night I did something I usually don't do. I gave a couple of bucks to Al Gore to help him keep his house nice and cool during these hot global warming summer months.

Yep, I rented "An Inconvenient Truth".

And honestly, I rented this movie (not truly a documentary so I won't call it that) with an open mind. I had been debating on renting it because I don't like to throw my money at propogandists. But I honestly rented it hoping that some overwhelming tidbit would convince me to change my tune.

First of all, Al Gore did a wonderful job of narrating his touching autobiography. I almost felt like he had a big "S" under that suit and tie. He needs to start wearing Clark Clent glasses...it would fit his self image.

After mind-numbing segments on his determination and history with issues of the environment, he would go into dramatic pictures of CHANGE that have been observed in the world. The only thing he neglects to mention is that the camera was invented only 150 or so years ago. Would have been nice to see some cave man drawings of change prior to that but he spared us a truly historical perspective.

One thing I can say about Mr.Gore, he has a flare for the dramatic. Holywood and Gore fit like "Peas and Carrots" as another southern idiot would have said.

Anyway, he did try to use his dramatic flare with charts and graphs too. And I can see how to the unwashed masses this would have a shocking effect, a revelation. But I saw through it. I watched the DVD twice to make sure I really knew what I was seeing, but there it was in BLUE AND RED. My mind had wrestled with what I saw today at work, and when I got home, I decided to post sketches of one particularly trumped-up graph for all to see.

Here is a not-so rough sketch of the graph that Gore centers on for a good segment of the "Inconvenient Truth" comedy:

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/3245/goregraphqm4.jpg

Now, this was drawn with my own "Paint" program with the show paused in front of me. It is supposed to represent measured and corrolated temperature data over the past thousand years. The end to the left would be marked yr 1000 AD and the yr to the far right would be 2000AD. No, it isn't 100% line for line accurate, but I would say I have it about 95% correct.

Notice the arbitrary line dividing the blue regions from the red. I have studied this graph til my head hurts but can't for the life of me figure out what the meaning of this line is. It CAN'T be a MEAN, because the average would have roughly equal "area" between the red areas and the blue areas. The graph is inexplicably frigid looking isn't it? Makes the world we live in look like a big ice cube.

So, I took it upon myself to redraw the graph, trying to divide the two areas as evenly as possible. I'll admit that I might have went the other way with my new graph, maybe I made the world look a little hotter over the past millenium, but hey, maybe that helps to prove my point!!

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/2540/newgraphgg4.jpg

Yep, with a line down the middle that more approximates a "mean", the graph doesn't look so sinister does it? Well, I dunno, the sharp peaks of temperature on the right side do still hold a dramatic flare in my eyes. Why the bouncing up and down in the modern era when historical "corrolation" data seems a little more "dull"? In other words, why is the resolution of the data from year 1500 AD not so pin-point accurate as the past 150?

This brings up the point where Gore was a true "THESPIAN" during the show. He talks about the "doubters" who would argue that climate change is cyclical, after all we had the "medevial warming" period....then he chuckles and looks toward a dwarfish-looking temperature surge toward the left of the graph, then glances at the modern spikes, and gets a laugh from the audience.

OK, fair enough. But the large spikes on the graph sure made my head hurt again. But I knew the answer to why those spikes are there. Its kind of like the difference between an old 8 bit computer from the 70's and a modern 64 bit computer (or 128 bit for that matter). This is the differnce between blockish graphics of 70's Commodore Vic-20s and the high resolution photography of modern digital cameras. No No Mr. Gore, I'm not getting fooled.

So, undersanding the nature of corrolation data of core samples and tree rings, we know that sharp peaks and valleys of temperature swings occured even way back then, but our corrolation studies can't identify those yearly swings with pin-point accuracy. So just as we need a MEAN baseline with which to reference the mellinium, statisticians do the best they can to represent the trend that we are able to identify with low resolution data. During the medevial period, we know that there was a temperature surge, but we do not know from year to year or month to month what the global mean temperature was. Its more like we know the average global mean temperature of 10 or 20 year windows. Thus we offer a smoothed graphical representation.

But yet we look at the modern spikes and we think, my GOD the humanity! But to be fair, statisticians should smooth the data to look more like those years gone by when doing a long-term analysis.

I took the liberty of smoothing out the surges and spikes in this graph:

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/7296/smoothedgraphdd3.jpg

Now granted, this "smoothing" wasn't done mathematically with a computer or formula. I simply took Gore's dramaic graph, seeing the spikes and nulls from year to year, and made a visual "average" of what I saw. Still looks pretty alarming, I confess. There is still evidence that we need to keep studying the trends and concern ourselves with the environment, but by golly, I think Gore is a showman in the tradition of PT Barnum. Yep, there's a sucker born every minute.

He had some other interesting and equally dramatic graphs that he paraded around. But I leave you with this thought...If Al Gore and the lobbyists that pay for his lifestyle have to use drama and graph-fudging to make ONE point or fill ONE segment of the program, how can the data presented the other 90 or so minutes be trusted? Will I ever pay to watch another Gore autobiography again? You can bet I won't.

[K6BBC]

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r75/georgepeter/DG_Logo1.jpg

[al2i]

That is a greatly entertaining essay OM, with great visual illustrations. I am sure that some publication or another would be proud to publish your work. Even if you don't need the money, you could always donate the proceeds to the charity or cause of your choice.

You are right about the showmanship from Gore, but I think he really, really believes what he is saying and merely wants to present his message as forcefully as possible. Maybe I am wrong, but I do not sense that Gore is exceptionally deceptive -- at least as far as politicians go.

IMO the case for anthropomorphic global warming is well and strongly established. Unfortunately, like health care, the "cure" is likely to cause more damage than the disease. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 16 2007,18:04)]That is a greatly entertaining essay OM, with great visual illustrations. #I am sure that some publication or another would be proud to publish your work. #Even if you don't need the money, you could always donate the proceeds to the charity or cause of your choice.

You are right about the showmanship from Gore, but I think he really, really believes what he is saying and merely wants to present his message as forcefully as possible. #Maybe I am wrong, but I do not sense that Gore is exceptionally deceptive -- at least as far as politicians go.

IMO the case for anthropomorphic global warming is well and strongly established. #Unfortunately, like health care, the "cure" is likely to cause more damage than the disease. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Dave, I do not argue that there is no foundation for the science of anthrophilanthropic http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Global Warming. But I do not like drama when someone is giving me facts or figures to think about. I do not want to be entertained by the Simpsons as Gore did in the "flick". It was cute and all but it left me thinking that Gore is playing to an audience of mindless idiots who need Crayola drawings to understand the data.

I would like to see someone put together a factual, unbiased documentary to be presented with as much pomp and circumstance as Gore's biased piece. It might actually "edumicate" America and start a reasonable discussion on how to proceed rather than attempt to fabricate a sense of guilt. People are much more resceptive to ideas when they aren't condescended to like children.

[W3MIV]

The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become hopelessly politicized. Instead of reason being the dominant force impelling it, narrow agendas have taken command, and not all of them are trustworthy or have anyone's bests interests beyond their own at heart.

What would serve the cause better than anything else would be for Albert to shut up for a while. It would be even better were all of his opponents and antagonists to similarly "stifle themselves."

The problem now is that even the scientists are no longer to be trusted with managing and publishing research that is not tainted by politics. It has become a hopeless muddle of interests that defies the effort of the most seasoned bait caster to untangle.

BTW, I am willing to sell my carbon allotments if anyone is interested.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ July 16 2007,18:51)]http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r75/georgepeter/DG_Logo1.jpg
Do you realize that Al Gore could be the first man elected President Three Times??

[n2ize]

No, the central line (Value if the Y at the X axis) does not represent a mean. In all likelihood the value at the X axis is zero and the points above and below the X axis represent the amount of temperature variation from the average over time. You can't simply move points about the graph at will to try and represent a mean. You need to compute the mean and then plot your points as deviations around the mean.

I have to admit I still am not sure of this is what Gore's graph is trying to show. I am only guessing based on strikingly similar graphs like the ones shown in the link below.

Linque (http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm)

Scroll down a bit for a temprature variation over time graph that looks a lot like the Gore graph.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 16 2007,19:28)]No, the central line (Value if the Y at the X axis) does not represent a mean. In all likelihood the value at the X axis is zero and the points above and below the X axis represent the amount of temperature variation from the average over time. You can't simply move points about the graph at will to try and represent a mean. You need to compute the mean and then plot your points as deviations around the mean.

I have to admit I still am not sure of this is what Gore's graph is trying to show. I am only guessing based on strikingly similar graphs like the ones shown in the link below.

Linque (http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm)

Scroll down a bit for a temprature variation over time graph that looks a lot like the Gore graph.
Huh?

John, the mean would be the average temperature of all the data points from one end of the graph to the other. By definition, the line representing the mean will be the addition of all the data points devided by the number of all the data points. On a graphical representation such as Gore's, this will ALWAYS be depicted as two "area counts" of equal value, 50% of the area above the baseline and the other 50% of the area below the baseline.

My graph may not be precise, but it is MUCH CLOSER to representing the mean of the data than Gore's is.

I will tell you what the line is for. Gore's production staff and advisors, the people who put together his slide show, played with the graph til their heart was content and they found the image that most dramatically made the data look ominous. Outside of that, the line has no meaning whatsoever.

[N1LAF]

The lowest temperatures of the past two millennia, according to the new record, occurred during the Little Ice Age (AD 1400-1850), while the highest temperatures were found in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP: AD 800-1300). Furthermore, Mangini et al. say that the highest temperatures of the MWP were "slightly higher than those of the top section of the stalagmite (AD 1950) and higher than the present-day temperature." In fact, at three different points during the MWP, their data indicate temperature spikes in excess of 1°C above present (1995-1998) temperatures. (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/summaries/solarmwp.jsp)


Mangini et al. found "a high correlation between δ18O and δ14C, that reflects the amount of radiocarbon in the upper atmosphere," and they note that this correlation "suggests that solar variability was a major driver of climate in Central Europe during the past 2 millennia." In this regard, they report that "the maxima of δ18O coincide with solar minima (Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf, as well as with minima at around AD 700, 500 and 300)," and that "the coldest period between 1688 and 1698 coincided with the Maunder Minimum." Also, in a linear-model analysis of the percent of variance of their full temperature reconstruction that is individually explained by solar and CO2 forcing, they found that the impact of the sun was fully 279 times greater than that of the air's CO2 concentration, noting that "the flat evolution of CO2 during the first 19 centuries yields almost vanishing correlation coefficients with the temperature reconstructions." (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N30/EDIT.jsp)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ July 16 2007,17:53)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 16 2007,19:28)]No, the central line (Value if the Y at the X axis) does not represent a mean. In all likelihood the value at the X axis is zero and the points above and below the X axis represent the amount of temperature variation from the average over time. You can't simply move points about the graph at will to try and represent a mean. You need to compute the mean and then plot your points as deviations around the mean.

I have to admit I still am not sure of this is what Gore's graph is trying to show. I am only guessing based on strikingly similar graphs like the ones shown in the link below.

Linque (http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm)

Scroll down a bit for a temprature variation over time graph that looks a lot like the Gore graph.
Huh?

John, the mean would be the average temperature of all the data points from one end of the graph to the other. By definition, the line representing the mean will be the addition of all the data points devided by the number of all the data points. On a graphical representation such as Gore's, this will ALWAYS be depicted as two "area counts" of equal value, 50% of the area above the baseline and the other 50% of the area below the baseline.

My graph may not be precise, but it is MUCH CLOSER to representing the mean of the data than Gore's is.

I will tell you what the line is for. Gore's production staff and advisors, the people who put together his slide show, played with the graph til their heart was content and they found the image that most dramatically made the data look ominous. Outside of that, the line has no meaning whatsoever.
Yes if you are trying to make a graph showing the deviations of the variances shown on the graph about their arithmetic mean. However That doesn;t appear to be what the Gore graph is trying to do.

[N9XR]

Gore is just another one of those moron Southerners.

I think that is what Heath is trying to say here.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 16 2007,20:17)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ July 16 2007,17:53)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 16 2007,19:28)]No, the central line (Value if the Y at the X axis) does not represent a mean. In all likelihood the value at the X axis is zero and the points above and below the X axis represent the amount of temperature variation from the average over time. You can't simply move points about the graph at will to try and represent a mean. You need to compute the mean and then plot your points as deviations around the mean.

I have to admit I still am not sure of this is what Gore's graph is trying to show. I am only guessing based on strikingly similar graphs like the ones shown in the link below.

Linque (http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm)

Scroll down a bit for a temprature variation over time graph that looks a lot like the Gore graph.
Huh?

John, the mean would be the average temperature of all the data points from one end of the graph to the other. By definition, the line representing the mean will be the addition of all the data points devided by the number of all the data points. On a graphical representation such as Gore's, this will ALWAYS be depicted as two "area counts" of equal value, 50% of the area above the baseline and the other 50% of the area below the baseline.

My graph may not be precise, but it is MUCH CLOSER to representing the mean of the data than Gore's is.

I will tell you what the line is for. Gore's production staff and advisors, the people who put together his slide show, played with the graph til their heart was content and they found the image that most dramatically made the data look ominous. Outside of that, the line has no meaning whatsoever.
Yes if you are trying to make a graph showing the deviations of the variances shown on the graph about their arithmetic mean. However That doesn;t appear to be what the Gore graph is trying to do.
I honestly have no desire to debate GW here. So I won't go into facts or data or point-counter-point discussion of it. Just so you know that wasn't the intention of my observations.

If the discussion goes that route, I'll go find something better to do, honestly.

I just wanted to show that Gore and company MAY, just MAY be taking a page from the Bush/Cheney playbook. This "crock-umentary" reminds me allot of Colin Powell sitting before the UN panel (or whoever the audience was) presenting satellite photos and evidence to the world of Iraqi WMD's...A carefully staged and choreographed presentation to prepare us all for the new battle in the war on terrorism. Didn't matter that half of the evidence was misinterpreted or trumped.

I believe this is what Gore's graph represents. What factual data that is presented is soured by the condescending, fear provoking way in which he demonstrates it.

If your "linque" is any indication, the line is representative of the mean temperature of the past 40-50 years. On a graph depicting the past 1000 years, this is absolutely MEANINGLESS. All it shows is that the past 50 years has been a warm period comparable to the medevial warming period or other warming periods. It is MISLEADING AT BEST because it makes our global temperatures over the past 1000 years look like an icebox. When in reality, the temperature we are seeing right now vs the coldest temperatures during the period are not that wild a deviation from the mean of the period.

It is an example of playing with graphs, and part of the reason this debate is so obviously politicized on both sides of the issue.

[N1LAF]

When global cooling gripped the world (http://earth.usc.edu/geol150/evolution/images/littleiceage/LittleIceAge.htm)

Quote[/b] ]THE YEAR WAS 1645, and the glaciers in the Alps were on the move. In Chamonix at the foot of Mont Blanc, people watched in fear as the Mer de Glace (Sea of Ice) glacier advanced. In earlier years, they had seen the slowly flowing ice engulf farms and crush entire villages.

Similar dramas unfolded throughout the Alps and Scandinavia during the late 1600s and early 1700s, as many glaciers grew farther down mountain slopes and valleys than they had in thousands of years. Sea ice choked much of the North Atlantic, causing havoc with fisheries in Iceland and Scandinavia. Eskimos paddled their kayaks as far south as Scotland. At the same time in China, severe winters in Jiang-Xi province killed the last of the orange groves that had thrived there for centuries.

Throughout the world, from Norway to New Zealand, glaciers in mountainous areas advanced. Elsewhere, particularly in parts of Europe and North America, temperatures plummeted and harsh weather set in. It was a time of repeated famine and cultural dislocation, as many people fled regions that had become hostile even to subsistence agriculture.

Cold and erratic weather patterns produced numerous crop failures in northerly areas such as Scotland and Norway. Native American tribes such as the Iroquois relocated their villages to escape the cold. These migrations stirred up political conflict among tribes, leading to the creation of nonaggresssion pacts like the famous League of the Iroquois, adopted in the 1500s.

Greenlanders fared even worse. Growing sea ice cut off communication with the outside world beginning about 1370, and when German ships landed in Greenland more than a century later, they found a single frozen corpse but no living colonists among the ruins.

n London, freezings of the Thames River were celebrated with carnival-like "Frost Fairs" with food, drink and entertainment on the ice. The cold, snowy winters of the early 1800s may have inspired Charles Dickens' sentimental vision of the "old-fashioned" white Christmas.

In the fledgling United States, New York harbor froze over in winter, allowing people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island.

[K0RGR]

Instead of using what Schlumberger says are NASA's numbers, we should use NASA's real numbers:

NASA charts (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/)

Looks a lot like Gore's charts to me. Their conclusions look a lot like Gore's conclusions, too.

And if you saw the movie, you'd know that Gore isn't calling for anything that will bring down our economy - instead, he preaches that American companies should develop and sell the technologies needed to overcome the problem.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ July 16 2007,18:46)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 16 2007,20:17)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ July 16 2007,17:53)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 16 2007,19:28)]No, the central line (Value if the Y at the X axis) does not represent a mean. In all likelihood the value at the X axis is zero and the points above and below the X axis represent the amount of temperature variation from the average over time. You can't simply move points about the graph at will to try and represent a mean. You need to compute the mean and then plot your points as deviations around the mean.

I have to admit I still am not sure of this is what Gore's graph is trying to show. I am only guessing based on strikingly similar graphs like the ones shown in the link below.

Linque (http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm)

Scroll down a bit for a temprature variation over time graph that looks a lot like the Gore graph.
Huh?

John, the mean would be the average temperature of all the data points from one end of the graph to the other. By definition, the line representing the mean will be the addition of all the data points devided by the number of all the data points. On a graphical representation such as Gore's, this will ALWAYS be depicted as two "area counts" of equal value, 50% of the area above the baseline and the other 50% of the area below the baseline.

My graph may not be precise, but it is MUCH CLOSER to representing the mean of the data than Gore's is.

I will tell you what the line is for. Gore's production staff and advisors, the people who put together his slide show, played with the graph til their heart was content and they found the image that most dramatically made the data look ominous. Outside of that, the line has no meaning whatsoever.
Yes if you are trying to make a graph showing the deviations of the variances shown on the graph about their arithmetic mean. However That doesn;t appear to be what the Gore graph is trying to do.
I honestly have no desire to debate GW here. So I won't go into facts or data or point-counter-point discussion of it. Just so you know that wasn't the intention of my observations.

If the discussion goes that route, I'll go find something better to do, honestly.

I just wanted to show that Gore and company MAY, just MAY be taking a page from the Bush/Cheney playbook. This "crock-umentary" reminds me allot of Colin Powell sitting before the UN panel (or whoever the audience was) presenting satellite photos and evidence to the world of Iraqi WMD's...A carefully staged and choreographed presentation to prepare us all for the new battle in the war on terrorism. Didn't matter that half of the evidence was misinterpreted or trumped.

I believe this is what Gore's graph represents. What factual data that is presented is soured by the condescending, fear provoking way in which he demonstrates it.

If your "linque" is any indication, the line is representative of the mean temperature of the past 40-50 years. On a graph depicting the past 1000 years, this is absolutely MEANINGLESS. All it shows is that the past 50 years has been a warm period comparable to the medevial warming period or other warming periods. It is MISLEADING AT BEST because it makes our global temperatures over the past 1000 years look like an icebox. When in reality, the temperature we are seeing right now vs the coldest temperatures during the period are not that wild a deviation from the mean of the period.

It is an example of playing with graphs, and part of the reason this debate is so obviously politicized on both sides of the issue.
Heath, I hate to say it but your misunderstanding the graph and what it represents. If you look at the first graph on the link (as it has sharper resolution) The blue numbers below the graph don't nessesarilly represent freezing (icebox) temperatures, they represent the amount of variation in degrees celcius from a computed average that is taken as a zero baseline. So in other words a point that lies directly on the x axis implies 0 degrees of variation from the computed average. A point 8 tick marks above the x axis means a variation of 0.4 degrees celcius from the computed average since the way the graph is calibrated each step of the graph represents 0.05 deg C. #In other words if the computed average is for arguments sake 65 degrees then a point 8 steps above the x axis would represent a variation of 0.4 deg C or a temperature of 65.4 deg C. A point 20 steps below the x axis would reprsent a variation of 1 deg C from the average or 64 deg C. Hardly what I would call icebox temperatures. The graph does not represent a wide temperature variance. It actually represents a very narrow range of temperature variation of less than 1.2 deg C from the lowest point below the computed average to the highest point above.

If taken to heart what the graph does show is that the period we are now in has seen a very rapid rise in temperature (compared to past variations) in the period from 1860 to the present with the most pronounced changes occurring between 1960 - present.

[al2n]

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/6563/img3409millnq6.jpg

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ July 16 2007,22:33)]One thing I can say about Mr.Gore, he has a flare for the dramatic. Holywood and Gore fit like "Peas and Carrots"
We saw Hollywood mixed up with the White House in 1980, and now some people are calling for it again in 2008... No thanks.

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 17 2007,04:04)]Instead of using what Schlumberger says are NASA's numbers, we should use NASA's real numbers:

NASA charts (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/)
Quote[/b] ]The fun in science is to explore a topic from all angles and figure out how something works. To do this well, a scientist learns to be open-minded, ignoring prejudices that might be imposed by religious, political or other tendencies (Galileo being a model of excellence). Indeed, science thrives on repeated challenge of any interpretation, and there is even special pleasure in trying to find something wrong with well-accepted theory. Such challenges eventually strengthen our understanding of the subject, but it is a never-ending process as answers raise more questions to be pursued in order to further refine our knowledge.

There are two sides to every story – and global warming is no exception. There is an alternative perspective.

Bjorn Lomborg, named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in 2004 and author of the bestselling The Sceptical Environmentalist, is the poster boy for that perspective.

He basically says that global warming is real, and is caused by CO2, but there's not much we can do to change it. Even if everyone (including the United States) lived up to the Kyoto Protocol’s rules, and stuck to it throughout the century, the change would be almost immeasurable, postponing warming for just six years by 2100. His opinion is that the money and resources would be better spent elsewhere.

The sceptical environmentalist (http://liveearth.uk.msn.com/green/articles/the_sceptical_environmentalist.aspx?imageindex=1)

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] ] And honestly, I rented this movie (not truly a documentary so I won't call it that) with an open mind. Apparently not too open.
Quote[/b] ] I honestly have no desire to debate GW here. So I won't go into facts or data or point-counter-point discussion of it. Just so you know that wasn't the intention of my observations. Never ever go into facts or actual data unless you want to be taken seriously. Real facts and real data are only for the serious debaters.
Quote[/b] ]It is an example of playing with graphs, and part of the reason this debate is so obviously politicized on both sides of the issue.
So true. You have manipulated Gore’s graph and played with it until it looks like nothing Gore had there.
Quote[/b] ]If your "linque" is any indication, the line is representative of the mean temperature of the past 40-50 years. On a graph depicting the past 1000 years, this is absolutely MEANINGLESS. You are correct there again, Heath. The link is to Schlumberger. They are a company who does not believe in GW. They are trying to prove there is no GW here.
Quote[/b] ]If the discussion goes that route, I'll go find something better to do, honestly. Like high tail it to Tennessee and check out the cuties singing country music?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n2ize]

+-Basic curve/graph manipulation 101

Linque (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/)