Happy Holidays!

And to all a good day, a very good day. Let us at least acknowledge extant science of the human species and Gaia....

IEI Discovery Forum: Steve Salmony,
youtube.com
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KkmFuM77qU

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241977/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253687/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280359/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1332674/

Here's a poll on anti-vaccination:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/pro-vaccine-lobby-fight-to-st…

There is still no reliable and official (WMO, IPCC, ... even Wikisillia) definition of global temperature. What a terrible weakness and incompetence of the CAGW movement to be unable to define THE MOST IMPORTANT MEASURE of the warming religion, on which their whole existence is based.

There is still no reliable and official (WMO, IPCC, … even Wikisillia) definition of global temperature.

Yes there is.

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

EPIC FAIL!

Wow, does your link to "Effective Temperature" in wikipedia somehow relate in the sense of a definition of term to the global temperature presented by GISS, NOAA or HadCRUT? Answer required, amateur.

Wow, I give you the answer to my question to you: NO, it does not, hence you terribly failed as the content of your #4 is pure rubbish. The gobal temperatures from GISS have NOTHING in common with your given definition, pure nonsense from you, as always, and apparent considerable reading comprehension impairments you always show.

"Wow, does your link to “Effective Temperature” in wikipedia somehow relate in the sense of a definition of term to the global temperature presented by GISS, NOAA or HadCRUT? "

Yes.

IT ALSO proves your earlier claim "There is still no reliable and official (WMO, IPCC, … even Wikisillia) definition of global temperature." incorrect.

Wow child, how do you explain, that there is no definition of "Global Temperature" in climate-hysteric Wikisillia?

What you tried to sell as a "definition" falls short: "Effective Temperature" is defined in Wikisillia as:

"The effective temperature of a body such as a star or planet is the temperature of a black body that would emit the same total amount of electromagnetic radiation.[1] Effective temperature is often used as an estimate of a body's temperature when the body's emissivity curve (as a function of wavelength) is not known"

In the page you linked there is no mentioning AT ALL of "Global Temperature", hence EPIC FAIL BY BLATHER WOW! Why are you conceding to fall so deeply and obviously???

I give you a proposal of how a definition of "Global Temperature", as used by hundreds of AGW hysterics and IPCC-associated "climatology" scientists with political spin, should approximately sound:

"Global Temperature is what GISS or NOAA or Hadley Center/CRU calculate - each of them separately in a completely different way - as a mean global surface temperature per calendar year using - from year to year varying - sets of land-based temperature measurement stations as well as not precisely defined water temperature measurements from ocean water"

how do you explain, that there is no definition of “Global Temperature” in climate-hysteric Wikisillia?

I don't, since it does.

Here it is again:

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

Or is reading too much for you? Get an adult to help you with the big words like "A" and "The".

Wow troll, everybody except stubborn idiots immediately understand that you are suffering from reading disability. I recommend you visit one neurologist and afterwards one psychiatrist. You are a shame for your AGW church. Declarations from people like Trenberth, Tom Karl, and other prominent members from your camp (not the primitives like you) would confirm your insanity (you want to read their opinions on your shit?)

No, you petulant child, your claim at #3 is proven wrong. Attempts to pretend that somehow a definition of global temperature exists because you don't think it means global temperature, despite the text SAYING it is a global temperature (because, frankly, you don't think) doesn't work.

Wow baby, everything you said in the last 10 "comments" is of utmost idiocy, therefore really not worth mentioning. But I give you another chance: Are are able to explain that practically all terms - like bread, butter, sadomaso, gay, climate, brutaliy, lie, banana, house, united kingdom etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc are literally mentioned and defined in wikisilia, whereas "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" is not. Please don't try to lie at least for once.

practically all terms

Therefore not ACTUALLY *ALL* those terms.

Therefore despite them not existing, you do not care to doubt the existence of the words merely by them not existing in an online encyclopedia.

But despite it being in there:

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

That the definition of global temperature isn't defined *as you want it* is "proof" to your infantile intellect as "proof" there is no such thing.

Why is the nonexistence of some words in Wikipedia accepted, but not "Global Temperature"?

wow clown, the definition of "Global temperature" in wikipedia following your link above is:

Global temperature
In its AR4, WG1 report, Chapter3, the IPCC explains global temperature in these words:
There is no single thermometer measuring the global temperature. Instead, individual thermometer measurements taken every day at several thousand stations over the land areas of the world are combined with thousands more measurements of sea surface temperature taken from ships moving over the oceans to produce an estimate of global average temperature every month.

This "definition" has nothing in common with your previously the one in your previously given link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature) on "effective temperature":

The effective temperature of a body such as a star or planet is the temperature of a black body that would emit the same total amount of electromagnetic radiation.[1] Effective temperature is often used as an estimate of a body's temperature when the body's emissivity curve (as a function of wavelength) is not known. When the star's or planet's net emissivity in the relevant wavelength band is less than unity (less than that of a black body), the actual temperature of the body will be higher than the effective temperature. The net emissivity may be low due to surface or atmospheric properties, including greenhouse effect.

This shows how ridiculous you are. You are just a blather without any serious basis, just a dull moron without substance. You better give up commenting, as yiu are a shame for the AGW church.

Petulant child, you claimed global temperature wasn't in wikipedia. It was. See the link. You even read it.

A definition of global temperature is given in "Effective temperature", see earlier link. You read that link too.

Tell me, do you think doctors are ALL frauds? After all, you won't find the definition of body temperature in wikipedia either.

Global temperature is defined.

You, however, are incapable of getting over it.

The effective temperature of a body such as a [snip] planet ...

... is its global temperature.

What a loon you are, child.