Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[turbobloke]

plunker said:

turbobloke said:

In passing, what is the metadata referred to and how exactly was it used?

I don't know.

Nor do I, which is why I'm sceptical about this, knowing the source and the wider backdrop. Anyone standing behind that chart without such knowledge should be wary of future developments. People associated with, or associating with, SkepticalScience calling Fox News out is deepest irony

Attempts to claim 'nothing to see here' won't work, and aren't working.

A news item from a few days ago reveals that Republicans are to investigate climate data tampering by NASA

This won't go away.

[dickymint]

But..but I thought a .3C difference in temp relating to anything to do with climate wang will fry us to death? Surely that's exciting?

[plunker]

turbobloke said:

Nor do I, which is why I'm sceptical about this, knowing the source and the wider backdrop. Anyone standing behind that chart without such knowledge should be wary of future developments. People associated with, or associating with, SkepticalScience calling Fox News out is deepest irony

Attempts to claim 'nothing to see here' won't work, and aren't working.

A news item from a few days ago reveals that Republicans are to investigate climate data tampering by NASA

This won't go away.

What's the connection between the Salon article by Brad Friedman and ScepticalScience? I don't get it.

The congressional hearing on data adjustments is interesting given the large potential for a sceptic own-goal. Totally wild guess - Watts & Co have finished polishing their UHI paper at last 'just in time' to make a splash

[plunker]

dickymint said:

But..but I thought a .3C difference in temp relating to anything to do with climate wang will fry us to death? Surely that's exciting?

What .3C difference?

[turbobloke]

plunker said:

dickymint said:

But..but I thought a .3C difference in temp relating to anything to do with climate wang will fry us to death? Surely that's exciting?

What .3C difference?

Oooh that's tempting...

[Mr GrimNasty]

plunker said:

turbobloke said:

plunker said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

It's still unclear! Lack of information etc.
[/footnote]

Seems clear enough to me - the net effect of all land adjustments (black line) is ...unexciting.

You believe in what you're looking at, it could be no other way.

Eye-catching cherrys showing large adjustments = quotable.

The net effect of all adjustments = not quotable.

There is no info on one axis so the crossover point between negative/positive adjustments is hidden, the whole source/derivation has to be taken on trust, quite clearly there ARE large adjustments (in the context of the claimed amount of warming) that only favour increasing warmth overall as the biggest of these are applied to the largest datasets. The 'all land' average gives the impression of little overall adjustment - but is this just an average of the 3 lines - so not valid/honest - since the African data is so sparse/rubbish, you could if so minded, cough cough, deliberately apply an African adjustment to make the 'all land' line look flat/near zero, but still produce a signification added warming in the vast majority of the American/European and hence 'global' data.

Regardless, as we know, real station data is now rare, most is adjusted and the rest is interpolated from adjusted data and then readjusted. It's a farce. Complete nonsense to base any science on such data.

Anyway Plunker, I'm not futilely discussing a dubious little graph further, you're just using it as a distraction.

MY POINT THAT YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED was that if skeptical science is coming from a position of expertise and veracity, why the need to produce a diatribe of derision and misrepresentation and venom? It's not professional, or necessary, IF you are honest and have the facts on your side.

[plunker]

Mr GrimNasty said:

There is no info on one axis so the crossover point between negative/positive adjustments is hidden,

Huh? The Y-axis is labelled and is the neg/pos adjustment. The un-labelled X-axis is 1880-present as can be seen by clicking on the link to the Judith Curry article (by Zeke Hausfather) from where the graph originates.

Mr GrimNasty said:

the whole source/derivation has to be taken on trust, quite clearly there ARE large adjustments (in the context of the claimed amount of warming) that only favour increasing warmth overall as the biggest of these are applied to the largest datasets. The 'all land' average gives the impression of little overall adjustment - but is this just an average of the 3 lines - so not valid/honest - since the African data is so sparse/rubbish, you could if so minded, cough cough, deliberately apply an African adjustment to make the 'all land' line look flat/near zero, but still produce a signification added warming in the vast majority of the American/European and hence 'global' data.

You're making stuff up. What makes you think the 'All land' line is an average of the Africa/USA/Europe lines (ie NOT all land)?? They're just shown as examples of the adjustments doing different things (ie. NOT always in favour of increasing warmth as you claim)

Mr GrimNasty said:

Regardless, as we know, real station data is now rare, most is adjusted and the rest is interpolated from adjusted data and then readjusted. It's a farce. Complete nonsense to base any science on such data.

Anyway Plunker, I'm not futilely discussing a dubious little graph further, you're just using it as a distraction.

MY POINT THAT YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED was that if skeptical science is coming from a position of expertise and veracity, why the need to produce a diatribe of derision and misrepresentation and venom? It's not professional, or necessary, IF you are honest and have the facts on your side.

You'll have to explain the connection between the Salon article you linked to and ScepticalScience because I don't get it.

Edited by plunker on Monday 23 February 20:31

[turbobloke]

Apparently Greenpeace recently released a batch of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that showed climate realist Dr W Soon received research funding from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. The Heartland Institute awarded him the “Courage in Defense of Science Award". Now both are under attack, yet...the hotties at warmist Sierra Club also take fossil fuel money. So do Nature Conservancy, Rajendra Pachauri’s sustainability conference, and there are other warm recipients. Yet Soon and the Heartland Institute are attacked not for their science but for the same behaviour as shown by their attackers. There's that H word again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/...

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-...

[plunker]

Mr GrimNasty said:

So I repeat, stop the distraction, MY POINT THAT YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED was that if skeptical science warmists are coming from a position of expertise and veracity, why the need to produce a diatribe of derision and misrepresentation and venom? It's not professional, or necessary, IF you are honest and have the facts on your side.

It's the ying to the yang I guess. It's not like Christopher 'hoax-buster' Booker who kicked off this latest viral brouhah is writing formal dry science pieces exactly is it.

[Mr GrimNasty]

plunker said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

There is no info on one axis so the crossover point between negative/positive adjustments is hidden,

Huh? The Y-axis is labelled and is the neg/pos adjustment. The un-labelled X-axis is 1880-present as can be seen by clicking on the link to the Judith Curry article (by Zeke Hausfather) from where the graph originates.

Mr GrimNasty said:

the whole source/derivation has to be taken on trust, quite clearly there ARE large adjustments (in the context of the claimed amount of warming) that only favour increasing warmth overall as the biggest of these are applied to the largest datasets. The 'all land' average gives the impression of little overall adjustment - but is this just an average of the 3 lines - so not valid/honest - since the African data is so sparse/rubbish, you could if so minded, cough cough, deliberately apply an African adjustment to make the 'all land' line look flat/near zero, but still produce a signification added warming in the vast majority of the American/European and hence 'global' data.

You're making stuff up. What makes you think the 'All land' line is an average of the Africa/USA/Europe lines (ie NOT all land)?? They're just shown as examples of the adjustments doing different things (ie. NOT always in favour of increasing warmth as you claim)

Mr GrimNasty said:

Regardless, as we know, real station data is now rare, most is adjusted and the rest is interpolated from adjusted data and then readjusted. It's a farce. Complete nonsense to base any science on such data.

Anyway Plunker, I'm not futilely discussing a dubious little graph further, you're just using it as a distraction.

MY POINT THAT YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED was that if skeptical science is coming from a position of expertise and veracity, why the need to produce a diatribe of derision and misrepresentation and venom? It's not professional, or necessary, IF you are honest and have the facts on your side.

You'll have to explain the connection between the Salon article you linked to and ScepticalScience because I don't get it.

Edited by plunker on Monday 23 February 20:31

The complete axis info isn't in the news article, that is the point.

I've not made anything up, I've merely pointed out there is no way of knowing what it represents, no working/calculation method shown, and I've proposed one possibility and pointed out that a near flat line on this graph does not necessarily 'tell the truth'.

I've not claimed it is always in favour of increasing warmth in every instance, I said that is the overall effect, which is irrefutable (and by warmth, I meant warming trend - the EU/US data makes up the majority, in the main, the older it is, the more it is cooled, the newer, the more it is warmed up - actually the reverse of what you would expect as increasing UHI effect must be the largest factor requiring adjustment by far).

All this just shows what an unhelpful little graphic it is, and why it is irrelevant discussing it.

So why use this rather than hard examples, tit for tat, if they/you claim the skeptics are cherry picking adjusted sites that show a trend reversal from cooling to warming, pick some of these and provide the reasons for the adjustments and the calculation method, and cherry pick some others to prove it isn't across the board - should be easy to do both. And show some of the hundreds of sites that have/must require substantial adjustment because of increasing UHI effect?

The article is linked from the very first page of skeptical science, so sorry, yes my mistake, I didn't read the address bar, I assumed it was their article, they have placed the link there, my point was, and still is about warmist politics/propaganda in general, not specific sites.

AND MY POINT REMAINS, if skeptical science warmists are coming from a position of expertise and veracity, why the need to produce a diatribe of derision and misrepresentation and venom? It's not professional, or necessary, IF you are honest and have the facts on your side.

[Mr GrimNasty]

plunker said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

So I repeat, stop the distraction, MY POINT THAT YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED was that if skeptical science warmists are coming from a position of expertise and veracity, why the need to produce a diatribe of derision and misrepresentation and venom? It's not professional, or necessary, IF you are honest and have the facts on your side.

It's the ying to the yang I guess. It's not like Christopher 'hoax-buster' Booker who kicked off this latest viral brouhah is writing formal dry science pieces exactly is it.

I deleted and reposted to tidy up, so confusion reigns, but yes, I partly agree, but mainstream skeptics do not as far as I can see, write with the same insult flinging anger as warmists.

[AreOut]

[lenny007]

http://order-order.com/2015/02/24/ipcc-chair-quits...

[turbobloke]

lenny007 said:

http://order-order.com/2015/02/24/ipcc-chair-quits...

Blimey.

[chris watton]

turbobloke said:

lenny007 said:

http://order-order.com/2015/02/24/ipcc-chair-quits...

Blimey.

I am sure he has already secured himself a nice fat cheque and pension....

[lenny007]

http://order-order.com/2015/02/18/chair-of-the-ipc...

There's a link to the original story.

[dickymint]

turbobloke said:

lenny007 said:

http://order-order.com/2015/02/24/ipcc-chair-quits...

Blimey.

On leave not resigned! So he goes from doing nothing to doing.......err....nothing - snout still firmly in the trough.

[Blib]

Hopefully, this won't damage his reputation as the foremost "Climate Scentist" of his age.

[chris watton]

dickymint said:

turbobloke said:

lenny007 said:

http://order-order.com/2015/02/24/ipcc-chair-quits...

Blimey.

On leave not resigned! So he goes from doing nothing to doing.......err....nothing - snout still firmly in the trough.

Very difficult to forcibly pull parasites from their host...

[Einion Yrth]

chris watton said:

dickymint said:

turbobloke said:

lenny007 said:

http://order-order.com/2015/02/24/ipcc-chair-quits...

Blimey.

On leave not resigned! So he goes from doing nothing to doing.......err....nothing - snout still firmly in the trough.

Very difficult to forcibly pull parasites from their host...

For ticks at least, a soldering iron generally does the job;