Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2

[Jasandjules]

wc98 said:

i mean,how do you alter the data to account for time of observation changes,if there was no observation in the first place.

This is an easy one.

You say, how hot was it before? Ok, it needs to be a little hotter now to be a touch believable (after all, people are living currently and know full f***ng well it's colder than it was, their heating bills give it away along with cooler summers).

So, simply add it a few tenths of a degree hotter than last year. Rinse and repeat.

[Jasandjules]

Guam said:

Now comes the question that has to be asked, can we say actual real life temperatures have fallen? Its going to be difficult to refute that argument now. Politically I cant wait to see how they get around that as this gathers momentum.

Well, that's why it is now "Climate Change" and of course let's not forget that they are actually saying (with straight faces too!) that they always predicted some parts of the world would be colder. So they will claim more wind, less wind, more rain, less rain, more heat, less heat, more hail, less hail, more clouds, less clouds and so on ALL mean Climate Change is happening and we must all pay taxes to stop it...

[chris watton]

Guam said:

This is so enjoyable for those of us who have endured years of insults and derogatory comments on these threads, for having the temerity to question the data on technical grounds.

Those of you around long enough will recall the wood for trees row on the other thread. What that showed back then was that the data was at a stage where 3 trends could be extrapolated from the same data source, slightly up slightly down and flatline, all this from minor processing when generating the graph (Normalisation, detrending etc). What that indicates to anyone who understands this stuff is there is nothing there that can overcome the noise.

The evidence was clear enough years ago to anyone who bothered to look in the right places.

The magnitude is what escaped almost everyone in terms of detection.

Now comes the question that has to be asked, can we say actual real life temperatures have fallen? Its going to be difficult to refute that argument now. Politically I cant wait to see how they get around that as this gathers momentum.

If there's one thing I hate about the internet, it's the fact that those who argued, and still are arguing for MMGW will always get away with it. they just change their names/avatars, and no-one's any the wiser as to who these people are.

There should be a virtual stocks for us to virtually throw stuff at them for all of their lies and deception when their faith comes inevitably crashing down around them and are seen for the charlatans they so obviously are - but they'll just move on with no opportunity for redress.

And to think that their wages are more than likely derived from us, the tax payers, we pay them and all they do is lie and deceive us! The lies have been so huge that those who have helped propagate this scam should serve real prison time, and pay their ill-gotten gains back to the public they so willingly deceived.

[Mr GrimNasty]

There is of course the possibility that global warming is actually real and far worse than they thought, their 'base data' is just so rubbish, they don't know it yet!

[turbobloke]

Guam said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

There is of course the possibility that global warming is actually real and far worse than they thought, their 'base data' is just so rubbish, they don't know it yet!

Basically another twist of the "precautionary principle" unfortunately I think you have touched upon exactly what their argument may be, along with "we will need more funding to know for sure"

After all, sooperdoopercompooters are very expensive even if modellers are a degree or two cheaper.

[wc98]

surprise ,surprise .report on bbc this morning claiming oklahoma returning to dust bowl years after 3.5 years of drought. forgetting to mention the area affected is an arid region ,where the difference between a drought year and no drought is measured in millimetres (unless your a yank),in effect ,it is a fking dustbowl all the time,s. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ok4298

note info provided on link may be subject to change looking at current shenanigans.

Edited by wc98 on Thursday 3rd July 08:36

[Jinx]

wc98 said:

surprise ,surprise .report on bbc this morning claiming oklahoma returning to dust bowl years after 3.5 years of drought. forgetting to mention the area affected is an arid region ,where the difference between a drought year and no drought is measured in millimetres (unless your a yank),in effect ,it is a fking dustbowl all the time,s. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ok4298

So they fear a return of the weather from the 1930's - before mankind had any effect on climate (according to the IPCC). So they are fearing weather from before anthropogenic climate change? Is AGW good or bad?

[wc98]

Jinx said:

So they fear a return of the weather from the 1930's - before mankind had any effect on climate (according to the IPCC). So they are fearing weather from before anthropogenic climate change? Is AGW good or bad?

it will all be fine though,i just checked the forecast for the rest of the week,it,s to piss down in oklahoma next thursday !

[Jasandjules]

Mr GrimNasty said:

There is of course the possibility that global warming is actually real and far worse than they thought, their 'base data' is just so rubbish, they don't know it yet!

Nope. It's been rather cold over a few winters and much cooler over summers too compared to the late 90s and early 2000s. Those of us who need to keep an eye on temps for our pets are pretty clear on that.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Jasandjules said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

There is of course the possibility that global warming is actually real and far worse than they thought, their 'base data' is just so rubbish, they don't know it yet!

Nope. It's been rather cold over a few winters and much cooler over summers too compared to the late 90s and early 2000s. Those of us who need to keep an eye on temps for our pets are pretty clear on that.

It was a sarcastic observation, but having said that, you are not global - unless you are omnipresent!

[Jasandjules]

Mr GrimNasty said:

It was a sarcastic observation, but having said that, you are not global - unless you are omnipresent!

Well, I rely upon the term "Global Warming". Now, I appreciate that as a lawyer perhaps I take things too literally however I expect this to mean that the globe, or whole planet, is warming, or not remaining the same temperature and not getting colder. Ergo, if my part of the world is not getting warmer but in fact is cooling marginally, then I anticipate this to be key.

In saying the above, I do accept that now the goalposts have been changed once more and it is now asserted by the morons that Global Warming means that only some parts will get warm (they don't say what parts of course nor why nor indeed why when parts that are getting colder now were previously held up as "global warming" evidence when they were warming).... They also now say they always said this was the case, though seem to be somewhat lacking in evidence of the same, which is why I like to point them to "Snow is a thing of the past"......

[wc98]

you have to hand it to goddard,his style may not make him many friends ,but by christ he can find some obscure articles that rip the meme to shreds.this from 1912

West Gippsland Gazette 19 March 1912

CHANGE IN CLIMATE.

GREEN CHRISTMASES

By C. Le Lacy Evans, in the”Daily Mail.”

For many years back we have witnessed a noticeable climatic change in our winters in England, Scotland, and Northern Europe generally, together with reports of a similar character from America. As an instance of the former, during the present December a rare variety of spring sights and sounds are reported. With the thermometer often up to 50 deg., “partridges had practically commenced to pair” and “the rooks were busy repairing their old nests.” Fresh and succulent grass has grown as in spring, and cattle have been turned out. “to enjoy both the weather and the food.” A second group of flies are seen here and there, and often a cloud of gnats may be witnessed doing their vertical war-dance, while in more than one instance the bees—water scouts— have been busy. To the gardener these observations are unnecessary—he sees the facts daily. In New York during the present month the temperature rose to 60 deg., which is a record, 59deg. being registered in 1873. The underground railways registered 70 deg. This heat wave was general throughout the eastern States. “In Boston trees are budding in the parks, and on the Berkshire Hills, with the mercury showing 70deg., the maple sap is running as it does in spring-time.”

goddards post http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/1912...

link to article http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/68657631?s...

there is nothing new under the sun .indeed.

[Gandahar]

The reply about the issues raised on US weather stations from the authorities was very disappointing. reminds me of the bosses at work, ignore something which might make you more work.

And I am not a skeptic by the way, I am a non political person who likes science.

[wc98]

Gandahar said:

The reply about the issues raised on US weather stations from the authorities was very disappointing. reminds me of the bosses at work, ignore something which might make you more work.

And I am not a skeptic by the way, I am a non political person who likes science.

it certainly never addressed the main issue of the infilling data ,that is for sure.i had an exchange with nick stokes that took several questions over two days before the answer i expected was given. the infilling process is the one indefensible part of the adjustments.

i can just about buy the genuine tobs adjustments,though not the tobs being applied to zombie stations,but the infilling from what is essentially data from "warmer" stations is unjustifiable and would appear to be either the sum total,or a large part of the difference between the old temperature record and the new.

it has also come to light that as recent as the late 90,s there were only between 100 and 200 stations used for the data set,so it is easy to see how much retrospective adjustments using 1218 stations data,of which around 400 are zombie stations will create problems.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Jasandjules said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

It was a sarcastic observation, but having said that, you are not global - unless you are omnipresent!

Well, I rely upon the term "Global Warming". Now, I appreciate that as a lawyer perhaps I take things too literally however I expect this to mean that the globe, or whole planet, is warming, or not remaining the same temperature and not getting colder. Ergo, if my part of the world is not getting warmer but in fact is cooling marginally, then I anticipate this to be key.

In saying the above, I do accept that now the goalposts have been changed once more and it is now asserted by the morons that Global Warming means that only some parts will get warm (they don't say what parts of course nor why nor indeed why when parts that are getting colder now were previously held up as "global warming" evidence when they were warming).... They also now say they always said this was the case, though seem to be somewhat lacking in evidence of the same, which is why I like to point them to "Snow is a thing of the past"......

Anyway, there was a good letter in the paper today pointing out that although the met says we are being invaded by jellyfish because it is the 6th warmest June 'ever', it is actually also the 19th (or whatever) coldest. It just depends which way your bias dangles!

[brenflys777]

Guam said:

Great piece by Briggsy here

Watch out for those Crazed otters

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=12914

"A theory’s predictions are not evidence in favor of the theory."

I thought the article got a bit dammed up in his otter comparison to really get his teeth stuck into it. A log jam of ideas which interfered with the message stream.

What I did really appreciate were some of the comments. The chap who mentioned recent (100's of years ago) dairy farming on Greenland and Scottish grape production...

Anyway, I'd taken a break from checking in on this topic, but my daughters schools seem determined to pass off theories as inconvenient truths so I'd better brush up on the facts before parents evening.

Does anyone have a link to the US response to their mystic and fraudulent temperature data?

[brenflys777]

Guam said:

On Briggsy (I see what you did there but it isn't a beaver|) he can get a little bogged town in his analogies but I thought it was quite funny

Apologies - my innate beaver obsession strikes again - this is why I stuck to rock fondling geology at uni rather that the squishy stuff on top

Thanks for the link.

[turbobloke]

Guam said:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/01/ncdc-our-alg...

A climate related algorithm working as designed...was it designed to manufacture manmade up warming though.

[hornetrider]

This is pretty shocking actually.

BBC editorial guidelines to stifle balanced debate - they'll no longer be inviting guests who represent 'minority' or 'marginal' scientific opinion. Lawson and Montford in particular are namechecked.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/...

[chris watton]

hornetrider said:

This is pretty shocking actually.

BBC editorial guidelines to stifle balanced debate - they'll no longer be inviting guests who represent 'minority' or 'marginal' scientific opinion. Lawson and Montford in particular are namechecked.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/...

Nothing less than expected for the BBC. The only thing we can do, realistically, is simply watch not watch/listen to any BBC content, or at least restrict exposure to it. I used to get too wound up when being subjected to it, now though, I realise I don't need it in my life.

Never understand why so many think they have to rely on it!

However, what I find scary is the first tentative steps that are now happening to censor the internet - they hack away, bit by bit (boiling frog analogy) as stuff we once never thought about/took for granted slowly disappear/becomes illegal..

And still we'll get people defending the drip, drip erosion of genuine free thought - believe what the state tells you, lest you be branded a 'crank', 'fruitcake' or 'nutcase'. Denier, even...

For me, life's too short to worry about this constantly, so I limit my exposure to it - if people swallow what they're drip fed, more fool them.

Edited by chris watton on Friday 4th July 11:21

Edited by chris watton on Friday 4th July 11:22