I am personally not clear on how the DOS would happen

DOS - Denial of Service - is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack It's miserably complicated.

When the AGW's see that the foundations in which they built their argument upon crumble even further to dust, then their desperation leads to malevolent acts of desperation.

Game, set, and match.

Anyone surprised? To all you climate change denier deniers it is not about the answer that suits your personal point of view, it is about what is actually happening.

LindaL,

It's a computer generated queue (and queries) generated to disrupt the computer it is attacking and any valid users (you can't get access).

This type of attack is usually caused by script kiddies ... they can't generate the code themselves to do this, so they download it.

Bottom of the barrel stuff combined with very powerful stupid.

Al Gore,David Suzuki,James Lovelock the tree producers of HOT AIR lets harness them

(1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA)
As I explained last night this is still a non-story.
First of all 1998 was not the warmest year in the US, it's now 2006 and when we are talking global warming we don't just refer to the US (only 2% of the earth's surface) We talk about global averages, and that's why we call it "global" warming.
I'm too tired to argue the point tonight any further.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070110-warmest-year.html

More likely you're too busy organizing the Algore fanboy network to DOS McIntyre's site.

They lied, Alby. Its over. Go buy yourself a new hobby horse tomorrow. Or get mummy to do it for you.

Funny how the first reaction of the Leftard faction is to lie, and the second is to do violence and/or vandalism. Hopefully we don't get to faction reaction level three, mass murder.

It would upset my stock portfolio.

I think the part that Alby, Smoke, et al are missing (well, I suspect one part of many) is that if the US data was corrupted, wouldn't it be possible (or perhaps likely) that the REST of the world data is also corrupted?

"Oh, it's only 2%"...but what if they find that Australia's data is wrong, too..."Oh, it's only 3.5%"...etc and ad nauseum.

With so many holes and problems showing up in the data and theory, the logical thing to do would be to go back to the theory and start patching it up, plugging the holes and searching for the cause of the problem...not attacking the folks who are pointing out the problems.

"Hey, dude, your boat is leaking" draws a response of "Denier! Shut up!".

Let 'em drown, I say.

albatros39a,

"First of all 1998 was not the warmest year in the US, it's now 2006 and when we are talking global warming we don't just refer to the US"

....can you say spin, spin, spin..

Nice story from January. Too bad the temperature data has been overwritten since the release of that story.

Besides, the whole point here is that, if there is problems with the data published by GISS, then who else has problems with their data.

Ya sure, adjust the US data and then marry it up with the rest of the data out there and viola you don't change things much.

But don't you think, if the US, a developed nation with lots and lots of resources allocated for research has problems, the rest the world should maybe, just maybe want to audit their numbers too, just in case they have similar "problems".

It's seems so typical to just spin this into a "non-story" as you say, and just move on.

Nothing to see here folks! Move along! Move along!

The U.S. is only 2% so mistakes in its data are negligible. However, when Canada is only responsible for 2% of the world's emissions, it is imperative that we cut them by 40% or 50% in order to save the planet. Seems to add up, doesn't it?

akbatris39a. Kate's first link in the post is to her story that shows the warmest is now 1934 not 2006. -- John M Reynolds

Yes 1934 was the warmest. But yesterday was the coldest ever recorded in Prince George B.C. .5 degrees C. This morning at 6 AM it was only 1 degree C. I believe the massive snowfall that the coastal mountains of B.C. received is still over 100% above normal. The question is will it still be on the ground when our next snowfall comes?

seems the merry boys of global warming/climate change have had to ADJUST thier previous predictions for 05 and 06 as the weather did not follow their predictions, they now have a better "program" and have adjusted for factors that they "UNDER ESTAMATED" previously

it would appear that the science wasn't quite as settled as they told us

so alby et tel, when you finally relize that climate change is ever on going and beyond the capabilities of modern science and well beyond modern "programing" and existing computer capabilities, then and only then will you actually grasp the essence of our "denier" position

alby is the denier here.

It froze in Meadow Lake, SK last night.

Well of course when you hear this buzz about the "debate being over" when we are looking at a proposed theory ( either scientific or social or economic), what you have is Leftard code for : " this is now am officially politicized leftoid issue that we want to use to garner power, credibility and profit where none is warranted.

The Nat. Geographic told us all that 2006 was the hottest year ever,... in November of 2006.

Who could know then that December of 2006 would NOT be 31 days of exactly the median temperature for that year.

Honest mistake, quoting that lie 8 months later though....???

The warmmongers should be happy about the "revised" temperatures. The shreiking of "Global Doom" if we don't do something about it, should abate. Ergo no more "Doomesday". Whew, glad that's over with and we can just get on with our lives. Sad thing though, our governments are now behind the times on this and seem hell bent on putting the screws to us low-life taxpayers with grin 'ouse gizz rules and regulations that aren't even required. Someone should phone 'em up & give them the good news.

Alby,

The Kyoto Kult has been shown to have produced verifyably incorrect data, shoddy methods, outright fraud, etc. Not once, but on a number of occations. This is on top of their refusal to release their methods of "smothing" and the basis of their computer simulations which the so-called "proof" is based on.

If you have numerous instances of fraud, manipulation, error in fact and method, your science isn't relyable and is therefore invalid.

But you're not bright enough to get that concept. Go ask your sociology prof what your opinion is and get back to me.

Hey Albi, that nice little story is 6 monthes old.... as in when they were still using the defective software for calculating how hot it was. 2006 is now the 4th hottest year in the US since 1880 right behind 1921 LOL