Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Gandahar said:
So avoid quoting him in future unless you want a new one ripped. 
Are we back to your primary and secondary source confusion?IIRC the material referred to when posted on here is more often than not data from a primary source.
You're referring to the secondary source in those circumstances.
Have you got a new one
Gandahar said:
Steve Goddard, aka Tony Hill,
Tony Heller.And his blog site was updated as of today (AWOL is not the acronym you were looking for). I'm sure you were trying to make a point but it read more like a copy and paste off de-smeg-blog than an actual attempt at any rebuttal.
Pretty sure the ice extent dataset issue has been discussed fully on WUWT so if you think you have anything useful to add it may be best to respond over there (or maybe even on realclimatescience.com) as I don't think Tony Heller posts on Pistonheads.
Gandahar said:
Steve Goddard, aka Tony Hill, poster child of skeptics, has gone awol
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/05/arctic-non-m...
"I will continue to track this, because I don’t trust any government agency anymore."
Only because it has gone against what he was preaching last year.
Tony picked up on the DMI arctic graph as it fitted his belief before the summer melt last year. He said it would be similar to 2006 for an Arctic minima on extent and then it was a lot lower. Then he shifted his gaze to the Arctic putting on a lot more ice, due to a wonky graph at DMI. Which they have explained subsequently. Something I picked up straight away, but which they, wanting values to prove their world view, ignored. Until it really went bananas and was obviously a web updated graph nobody at the institute was looking at.
Then they did and told people to ignore it.
So now, they are part of the conspiracy according to Steve / Tony.
So wipe out RealclimateScience as any info from the skeptics side as they are not credible. Worse than the BBC.
From a reply I posted to a top NASA scientist last year when the graph started to go awol
"I don’t really think Steve Goddard is worth responding to - it’s really junk science. The main thing I see is that Goddard is referencing an outdated product. On the web page for the new product, it essentially says that the old product is inferior and shouldn’t be used. I don’t know why they keep the old site going.
A good indication that something is wrong with the old plot is that it is out of whack with the numerous other sources of Antarctic sea ice extent: NSIDC, NASA Goddard, JAXA, Univ. of Bremen,…and the new DMI. When several estimates agree and one is an outlier, the outlier is usually wrong."
So avoid quoting him in future unless you want a new one ripped.
Why do warmists always think that pointing out Tony's well known pseudonym (and you're not even well-informed enough to get it right LOL) in someway discredits him? Bizarre. Of course you are trying to imply he is 'hiding' behind anonymity. Pathetic effort mate.http://realclimatescience.com/2016/05/arctic-non-m...
"I will continue to track this, because I don’t trust any government agency anymore."
Only because it has gone against what he was preaching last year.
Tony picked up on the DMI arctic graph as it fitted his belief before the summer melt last year. He said it would be similar to 2006 for an Arctic minima on extent and then it was a lot lower. Then he shifted his gaze to the Arctic putting on a lot more ice, due to a wonky graph at DMI. Which they have explained subsequently. Something I picked up straight away, but which they, wanting values to prove their world view, ignored. Until it really went bananas and was obviously a web updated graph nobody at the institute was looking at.
Then they did and told people to ignore it.
So now, they are part of the conspiracy according to Steve / Tony.
So wipe out RealclimateScience as any info from the skeptics side as they are not credible. Worse than the BBC.
From a reply I posted to a top NASA scientist last year when the graph started to go awol
"I don’t really think Steve Goddard is worth responding to - it’s really junk science. The main thing I see is that Goddard is referencing an outdated product. On the web page for the new product, it essentially says that the old product is inferior and shouldn’t be used. I don’t know why they keep the old site going.
A good indication that something is wrong with the old plot is that it is out of whack with the numerous other sources of Antarctic sea ice extent: NSIDC, NASA Goddard, JAXA, Univ. of Bremen,…and the new DMI. When several estimates agree and one is an outlier, the outlier is usually wrong."
So avoid quoting him in future unless you want a new one ripped.
Anyway, poor old Gandahar, you really have got completely the wrong end of the stick. You have confused 2 completely different issues, and presented the facts with your usual extreme prejudice.
What actually happened was that LAST YEAR the DMI cocked up with their 30% ice graph, the fact that Tony realised there was an inconsistency first, probably says a lot. The way the DMI handled this was unprofessional, and their withdrawal of the product, completely, and their dubious explanation remains a stain on their reputation.
As for the COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE of the 15% ice graphs Tony is currently wittering on about, he has a point in that the data looks (IT IS) slightly inconsistent, I haven't personally said anything about this as I think it is probably just down to the inherent inaccuracy of the measurements and changes they have made, and the compressed date x-axis means it is difficult to see the flattening of the graphed response until several weeks have passed. I also don't agree with his idea of when/how ice can melt (or extent diminish), as we saw the Beaufort Gyre recently piled up the ice reducing the extent markedly with no melting at all. I suspect the graph will trend into the similar range as the last few years within a month or so. It does appear odd that the graphs should show 2016 extent below 2015.
And as for quoting NASA, well NSIDC was recently caught with its pants completely down 'reinventing' its multi-year Arctic Ice graphs to disappear an increasing picture since 2007 into a more or less continuous decline on the anniversary date when the ice would have all aged a year, instead of which, overnight, all the old graphs vanished along with a big chunk of 5+ year ice.
So if you think Tony is in anyway diminished by making a few mistakes, when PROFESSIONAL government agencies and official record keepers are repeatedly so utterly incompetent/untrustworthy, you really are a bigger fool than you sound.
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Thursday 2nd June 22:40
A recent El Nino took the planet to an 11,000 yr max?
And this is a sign - when there's no causality to humans?
Sounds like a religious episode, somebody saw a sign.
Take the red line up to 1 deg by all means, it's still beaten twice maybe thrice on this Greenland data. Perhaps the warming wasn't hlobal, and polar amplification suffered a broken transistor just like now in the antipodes.
Combining a couple of threads, it's a pity that CMD's interviewer only asked which would be first if we quit the EU, WW3 or a recession, the sky falling in should have been included in the options. Hang on, there's politics in that
And this is a sign - when there's no causality to humans?
Sounds like a religious episode, somebody saw a sign.
Take the red line up to 1 deg by all means, it's still beaten twice maybe thrice on this Greenland data. Perhaps the warming wasn't hlobal, and polar amplification suffered a broken transistor just like now in the antipodes.
Combining a couple of threads, it's a pity that CMD's interviewer only asked which would be first if we quit the EU, WW3 or a recession, the sky falling in should have been included in the options. Hang on, there's politics in that
AreOut said:
Since when were people allowed to publish graphs that claim to show the current period is rather cooler than much of the previous 10k years?I also note that the width of the line of the graph, as presented, probably represents at least 50 years on the scale.
It's so easy to throw some numbers into a reporting tool these days and then publish the output without any further thought.
It's also rather easy to manipulate the appearance using emotive colours and selective range processing in order to, er, "emphasise" a message. Hardly anyone will check the output. Few people will have access to the base data point that would allow them to check the veracity of the graph.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/cal...
A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.
Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.
Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
Pesty said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/cal...
A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.
Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
Might that general wording also have applied the other way or was there some specific escape clause for the Sierra Club and their mates?A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.
Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
Pesty said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/cal...
A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.
Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
Jesus! That could have backfired in a magnificent fashion! A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.
Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
England not windy enough, admits wind industry chief...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/04/eng...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/04/eng...
Solar is not as bright as the BBC would have us think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/06/04/bbc-...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/06/04/bbc-...
Returning to the Portland School Board banning teaching materials that shed doubt on man-made climate change (they think words like 'could' instead of 'does' are evil 'sceptic' propaganda!);- well a teacher Tim Swinehart who helped draft the policy has his own book along with that well known climate propagandist who is completely ignorant of the main temperature datasets - David Suzuki!!!!!!
http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Curriculum-Earth-Tea...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4SaIFsyxgA
http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Curriculum-Earth-Tea...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4SaIFsyxgA
As reported above in the Telegraph
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3628489/Mo...
I want my money back.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3628489/Mo...
I want my money back.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff