The nub of the climate change thing problem

[JohnStOnge]

Gee I'm really proud of myself for starting this thread. Excellent discussion.

[CID1990]

you tried and failed to address the temperature rise that refutes the hockey stick model.

noted

It's already been addressed. Please provide a link from a reputable source refuting it.

The weather refutes it, klam.

If you or your toady bobblehead HD understood anything about the difference between the predictive model and the actual observed data then you'd see it. But you refuse to look.

And stop throwing out red herrings to try to change the subject. I have never come down on one side or the other as to whether or not GW is anthropogenic. I have even said in this very thread that some of it almost certainly is.

But you refuse to look at the fact that disproven predictive models like the hockey stick are completely destroying any chance the climate alarmists have at swaying policy makers , because they kill their credibility. So in reality they may be at least partially correct, but their refusal to let go of past erroneous predictions is consigning us to doing NOTHING about it.

[travelinman67]

It's already been addressed. Please provide a link from a reputable source refuting it.

The weather refutes it, klam.

If you or your toady bobblehead HD understood anything about the difference between the predictive model and the actual observed data then you'd see it. But you refuse to look.

And stop throwing out red herrings to try to change the subject. I have never come down on one side or the other as to whether or not GW is anthropogenic. I have even said in this very thread that some of it almost certainly is.

But you refuse to look at the fact that disproven predictive models like the hockey stick are completely destroying any chance the climate alarmists have at swaying policy makers , because they kill their credibility. So in reality they may be at least partially correct, but their refusal to let go of past erroneous predictions is consigning us to doing NOTHING about it.

It goes beyond being disproven empirically. Mann's model was discredited by McIntyre-McKittrick back in 2004. Mann ignored ("forced normalization") of data, which invalidated the model.

The proof is easy to find. I've already posted the link. Kalm won't read anything divergent from his fantasyland ideology. His mission is to waste our time.

[kalm]

It's already been addressed. Please provide a link from a reputable source refuting it.

The weather refutes it, klam.

If you or your toady bobblehead HD understood anything about the difference between the predictive model and the actual observed data then you'd see it. But you refuse to look.

And stop throwing out red herrings to try to change the subject. I have never come down on one side or the other as to whether or not GW is anthropogenic. I have even said in this very thread that some of it almost certainly is.

But you refuse to look at the fact that disproven predictive models like the hockey stick are completely destroying any chance the climate alarmists have at swaying policy makers , because they kill their credibility. So in reality they may be at least partially correct, but their refusal to let go of past erroneous predictions is consigning us to doing NOTHING about it.

So you have nothing...

[kalm]

The weather refutes it, klam.

If you or your toady bobblehead HD understood anything about the difference between the predictive model and the actual observed data then you'd see it. But you refuse to look.

And stop throwing out red herrings to try to change the subject. I have never come down on one side or the other as to whether or not GW is anthropogenic. I have even said in this very thread that some of it almost certainly is.

But you refuse to look at the fact that disproven predictive models like the hockey stick are completely destroying any chance the climate alarmists have at swaying policy makers , because they kill their credibility. So in reality they may be at least partially correct, but their refusal to let go of past erroneous predictions is consigning us to doing NOTHING about it.

It goes beyond being disproven empirically. Mann's model was discredited by McIntyre-McKittrick back in 2004. Mann ignored ("forced normalization") of data, which invalidated the model.

The proof is easy to find. I've already posted the link. Kalm won't read anything divergent from his fantasyland ideology. His mission is to waste our time.

A mining consultant and an economist, backed by Exxon, James Inhofe, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute walk into a bar….

[AZGrizFan]

1/100TH of a degree hotter...with a margin of error of 8/100ths of a degree.

Yep, that's some solid fucking science there.

Throw out the rest of the indicators with bath water, Dr. Z.

Spoken like someone who's ignoring a 14 year "pause" (hint: an indicator).

Kalm, after announcing it was the hottest year on record, they came BACK out and said they only had a 38% certainty factor that it was the hottest year on record. In other words....LESS THAN 50/50.

You could get a monkey to pick one (hotter or colder) out of a hat and be right more often.

[travelinman67]

Back to reality...

...the truth.

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever


By Christopher Booker
10:15PM GMT 07 Feb 2015

New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

[kalm]

Throw out the rest of the indicators with bath water, Dr. Z.

Spoken like someone who's ignoring a 14 year "pause" (hint: an indicator).

Kalm, after announcing it was the hottest year on record, they came BACK out and said they only had a 38% certainty factor that it was the hottest year on record. In other words....LESS THAN 50/50.

You could get a monkey to pick one (hotter or colder) out of a hat and be right more often.

I've posted explanations of the pause and degree of certainty for you already.

You can lead a gift horse to water but you can't make him shoot.

[CID1990]

The weather refutes it, klam.

If you or your toady bobblehead HD understood anything about the difference between the predictive model and the actual observed data then you'd see it. But you refuse to look.

And stop throwing out red herrings to try to change the subject. I have never come down on one side or the other as to whether or not GW is anthropogenic. I have even said in this very thread that some of it almost certainly is.

But you refuse to look at the fact that disproven predictive models like the hockey stick are completely destroying any chance the climate alarmists have at swaying policy makers , because they kill their credibility. So in reality they may be at least partially correct, but their refusal to let go of past erroneous predictions is consigning us to doing NOTHING about it.

So you have nothing...

I have observation and science. You have politics.

I could go look up the dissenters on Gore's own IPCC panel for you and link them, but again, the science and the fact that the climate is inconveniently differing from the models is not what you and the rest of the alarmists are about.

[kalm]

So you have nothing...

I have observation and science. You have politics.

I could go look up the dissenters on Gore's own IPCC panel for you and link them, but again, the science and the fact that the climate is inconveniently differing from the models is not what you and the rest of the alarmists are about.

Dissension is healthy. By all means, post it.

But remember, non-science based propaganda is not.

[AZGrizFan]

Spoken like someone who's ignoring a 14 year "pause" (hint: an indicator).

Kalm, after announcing it was the hottest year on record, they came BACK out and said they only had a 38% certainty factor that it was the hottest year on record. In other words....LESS THAN 50/50.

You could get a monkey to pick one (hotter or colder) out of a hat and be right more often.

I've posted explanations of the pause and degree of certainty for you already.

You can lead a gift horse to water but you can't make him shoot.

DOesn't change the fact they were only THIRTY EIGHT percent certain of their statement. Funny thing...in MY industry, if my certainty drops from 99% to 98%, I probably get fired. Only in climate science can someone with a 38% certainty factor be viewed as an "expert".

[kalm]

I've posted explanations of the pause and degree of certainty for you already.

You can lead a gift horse to water but you can't make him shoot.

DOesn't change the fact they were only THIRTY EIGHT percent certain of their statement. Funny thing...in MY industry, if my certainty drops from 99% to 98%, I probably get fired. Only in climate science can someone with a 38% certainty factor be viewed as an "expert".

And they were twice a certain as the two other hottest years. Doesn't change the trends....

[travelinman67]

I have observation and science. You have politics.

I could go look up the dissenters on Gore's own IPCC panel for you and link them, but again, the science and the fact that the climate is inconveniently differing from the models is not what you and the rest of the alarmists are about.

Dissension is healthy. By all means, post it.

But remember, non-science based propaganda is not.

So, Kalm, where's YOUR science?

Quick, Huffpo, The Atlantic, NYT, Wapo, CAP have any talking point "science" articles you can cite?

Here's the truth:

GISS caught falsifying data to force hypothesis...

Paraguay
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... more-12774

WITH ACCOMPANYING DATA TO BACK UP ASSERTION.

The Arctic series
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/

Now, I realize you have no intention of ACTUALLY READING THE RESEARCH beyond noting the author's name (Paul Homewood) then racing over to Soros-funded "Sourcewatch.org" to find the commie-retort du jour...

...so, just to save everyone's time, I will stipulate the author probably votes conservative, drives a V-8, and once filled up at an Exxon gas station.

[AZGrizFan]

DOesn't change the fact they were only THIRTY EIGHT percent certain of their statement. Funny thing...in MY industry, if my certainty drops from 99% to 98%, I probably get fired. Only in climate science can someone with a 38% certainty factor be viewed as an "expert".

And they were twice a certain as the two other hottest years. Doesn't change the trends....

You're right. Doesn't change the trend that their science absolutely SUCKS. Glad we agree.

[kalm]

Dissension is healthy. By all means, post it.

But remember, non-science based propaganda is not.

So, Kalm, where's YOUR science?

Quick, Huffpo, The Atlantic, NYT, Wapo, CAP have any talking point "science" articles you can cite?

Here's the truth:

GISS caught falsifying data to force hypothesis...

Paraguay
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... more-12774

WITH ACCOMPANYING DATA TO BACK UP ASSERTION.

The Arctic series
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/

Now, I realize you have no intention of ACTUALLY READING THE RESEARCH beyond noting the author's name (Paul Homewood) then racing over to Soros-funded "Sourcewatch.org" to find the commie-retort du jour...

...so, just to save everyone's time, I will stipulate the author probably votes conservative, drives a V-8, and once filled up at an Exxon gas station.

Those dirty rotten Paraguayan bastards!!!

[houndawg]

It's already been addressed. Please provide a link from a reputable source refuting it.

The weather refutes it, klam.

If you or your toady bobblehead HD understood anything about the difference between the predictive model and the actual observed data then you'd see it. But you refuse to look.

And stop throwing out red herrings to try to change the subject. I have never come down on one side or the other as to whether or not GW is anthropogenic. I have even said in this very thread that some of it almost certainly is.

But you refuse to look at the fact that disproven predictive models like the hockey stick are completely destroying any chance the climate alarmists have at swaying policy makers , because they kill their credibility. So in reality they may be at least partially correct, but their refusal to let go of past erroneous predictions is consigning us to doing NOTHING about it.

I sure do get under your skin.


You'd think a high-rolling federal official that has been everywhere and done everything wouldn't get so testy about one grubby little farmer out there in fly over country....


I'm flattered, COD.

[houndawg]

I've posted explanations of the pause and degree of certainty for you already.

You can lead a gift horse to water but you can't make him shoot.

DOesn't change the fact they were only THIRTY EIGHT percent certain of their statement. Funny thing...in MY industry, if my certainty drops from 99% to 98%, I probably get fired. Only in climate science can someone with a 38% certainty factor be viewed as an "expert".

You need to get out of the small-time end of your industry and start rollin' with the real bankers, get 7 figure bonuses for 38% certainity...

[houndawg]

And they were twice a certain as the two other hottest years. Doesn't change the trends....

You're right. Doesn't change the trend that their science absolutely SUCKS. Glad we agree.

Tell us about your scientific qualifications, Z. Help us understand.

[CID1990]

The weather refutes it, klam.

If you or your toady bobblehead HD understood anything about the difference between the predictive model and the actual observed data then you'd see it. But you refuse to look.

And stop throwing out red herrings to try to change the subject. I have never come down on one side or the other as to whether or not GW is anthropogenic. I have even said in this very thread that some of it almost certainly is.

But you refuse to look at the fact that disproven predictive models like the hockey stick are completely destroying any chance the climate alarmists have at swaying policy makers , because they kill their credibility. So in reality they may be at least partially correct, but their refusal to let go of past erroneous predictions is consigning us to doing NOTHING about it.

I sure do get under your skin.


You'd think a high-rolling federal official that has been everywhere and done everything wouldn't get so testy about one grubby little farmer out there in fly over country....


I'm flattered, COD.

I dont hold a candle to you, Bodycount Rambo.

[travelinman67]

So, Kalm, where's YOUR science?

Quick, Huffpo, The Atlantic, NYT, Wapo, CAP have any talking point "science" articles you can cite?

Here's the truth:

GISS caught falsifying data to force hypothesis...

Paraguay
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... more-12774

WITH ACCOMPANYING DATA TO BACK UP ASSERTION.

The Arctic series
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/

Now, I realize you have no intention of ACTUALLY READING THE RESEARCH beyond noting the author's name (Paul Homewood) then racing over to Soros-funded "Sourcewatch.org" to find the commie-retort du jour...

...so, just to save everyone's time, I will stipulate the author probably votes conservative, drives a V-8, and once filled up at an Exxon gas station.

Those dirty rotten Paraguayan bastards!!!

So, Kalm, where's your science?

And, BTW, saying something is "settled" because there is a so-called "consensus" in agreement IS NOT SCIENCE: That is called bullshit to obfuscate an absence of science.

Waiting.

[kalm]

Those dirty rotten Paraguayan bastards!!!

So, Kalm, where's your science?

And, BTW, saying something is "settled" because there is a so-called "consensus" in agreement IS NOT SCIENCE: That is called bullshit to obfuscate an absence of science.

Waiting.

Did I use the term settled science?

Still waiting for you to post one thing from a legit scientific organization. Yawn

[travelinman67]

So, Kalm, where's your science?

And, BTW, saying something is "settled" because there is a so-called "consensus" in agreement IS NOT SCIENCE: That is called bullshit to obfuscate an absence of science.

Waiting.

Did I use the term settled science?

Still waiting for you to post one thing from a legit scientific organization. Yawn

McKittrick, McIntyre, Watts and Homewood (as well as dozens of other debunkers) have been peer reviewed.

You

Have

Nothing

Try again.

[houndawg]

Did I use the term settled science?

Still waiting for you to post one thing from a legit scientific organization. Yawn

McKittrick, McIntyre, Watts and Homewood (as well as dozens of other debunkers) have been peer reviewed.

You

Have

Nothing

Try again.

In which scientific journals?

[kalm]

McKittrick, McIntyre, Watts and Homewood (as well as dozens of other debunkers) have been peer reviewed.

You

Have

Nothing

Try again.

In which scientific journals?

The first two are an economist and a minerals explorer so....

[travelinman67]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/ ... e-science/

Yale study confirms skeptics of global warming theory are more knowledgeable about climate science than believers of AGW theory.