i never really looked into it. always thought 232 was the newer.

Serial?
Old?
Bah!

If my instruments have Serial it's high tech. Most of them use IEEE-488, and I'm controlling them with a HP-226.
That's this badboy right here: http://www.hpmuseum.net/upload...

A taxi company screaming "I am not a taxi company" is not a reason to change the laws.

Absolutely talking out of your ass.

QA of a structural part -DOES- involve testing it to failure.
A batch is made and a random representative sample of the batch is tested to failure.
That tells you then whether the batch as a whole may have had issues in the manufacturing process, and warrants further investigation.

This is done because they aren't designed to meet a specific use load, but rather to meet a specific failure load.
A beam, a strut, or any other structural member is designed and then chosen for its task according to its failure or yield strength.
Actual usage is then determined as a portion of that ultimate strength in order to provide a known Factor of Safety.

If the sample passes, then most likely the whole batch will too, although there is a slim chance a few pieces may not, but that chance is reduced by having consistent and quality manufacturing method/process. I could make 100 pieces, and test 95 of them to achieve that high confidence...but that's not very efficient. The better the process, the smaller the sample can be and still represent the whole batch.

Here we are once again observing the troll in his natural habitat. Note how he rejects any form of reality even after being repeatedly informed just what and how and why the adjustments are made. This marks the 786th straight day of this behavior. What curious benefits arise from this level of self delusion biologists have yet to confirm, but apparently there must be some as the repeated ignorance is quite astounding.

I have a feeling that if they had reported the translation from Luther the quotations would have been quite a bit more forceful.

It's what his kind honestly believe.

You twit. The main reason defense spending went down as a % of GDP over time was because of the growth of our economy, not because of a reduction in defense spending.

Using the amount as a % of GDP is just a mask.
All this is is another case of how to lie with statistics.

Start with the relation A/B.
You're claiming the A shrunk because the relation A/B shrunk.
But the reason A/B shrunk isn't because A shrunk, but because B grew, and continues to grow.

The 2016 campaign season is going to be a doozy.
the only comedians not lining up for this party are those that have already did their time and gotten burnt out from the last several cycles.

No, its actually very right, unlike basically anything you wiull find on WUWT.

Some adjustments are upwards.
But most are downwards.
Particularly those in the arctic which are are some of the largest magnitude adjustments.

The over all effect IS to reduce the apparent warming.
That is not a debatable statement, but it is easily verifiable by looking at the data yourself.

The primary source of adjustments upwards is the United States, when we switched from taking readings in the afternoon to doing it in the morning it introduces a very large bias. And in order to correct that bias in order to achieve the same base reference point so that our data is comparable to and can be combined with the rest of the world's data, it requires adjusting upwards:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Thing is....the US isn't the world. If you recall.
And the majority of the rest of the world's adjustments are downward.
And the overall effect is to, just as I said, reduce the amount of apparent warming.

Attn mods: stating a fact is not trolling.

The data, THE RAW DATA you jerkwads are always asking for, because you dont trust scientists, because you think you can independently check them, IF TAKEN AT FACE VALUE, WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS makes the Earth appear 20% warmer than it actually is.

It makes the state of global warming look WORSE than climatologists say it actually is.
In other words...the adjustments help you idiots who would rather say its not happening.

BTW, it also shows that the scientists dont have an agenda, and don't give a shit about any predetermined outcome, and truly do simply want to find out the factual truth of it all. Because if they truly had any sort of agenda, if it trully was solely about being an alarmist and scaring the shit out of people, why the fuck would they intentionally reduce the apparent magnitude of the warming if that was their goal?!

Besides being bullshit due to a misunderstand on your part, none of that changes, nor is it relative, to what I said, nor to what the GP said.

No, they addressed it by comparing the data both with those stations included,
and then with them excluded, entirely , ie, using solely rural stations.

And guess what? The result was the same; nearly unchanged.

In short, the idea that somehow its all due "heat islands", and that scientists are too stupid to think of this on their own, is bullshit .

Part of your problem is that you think someone repeating peer reviewed science is on equal footing with someone who spouts gibberish.

If Skeptical Science were publishing and creating its own scientific research.....the way WUWT does....then you would have a point.

But since they simply repeat what actual scientists say, tracing everything back to verifiable scientific observations and papers, they stand on pretty firm ground.
Unlike WUWT, and unlike you.