Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
Are you as ignorant of events as you appear to be.
The leaked Heartland Institute documents show funding for WUWT. A simple wikki will throw that up. The leaked documents are also available online. Heartland itself is funded by Exxon mobile and and Koch industries hence "Petro dollars".
Since the leak of course Heartland no longer reveal who any of their sponsors are. Now that's a surprise eh?
Given the nature of AGW zealots I'm not surprised Heartland won't reveal their sponsors. The so-called leak shows a small grant made available for a particular piece of work (the normal way any research gets funded). It's all there in black and white if you bother to go over to WUWT. The leaked Heartland Institute documents show funding for WUWT. A simple wikki will throw that up. The leaked documents are also available online. Heartland itself is funded by Exxon mobile and and Koch industries hence "Petro dollars".
Since the leak of course Heartland no longer reveal who any of their sponsors are. Now that's a surprise eh?
You seem very ignorant in the way all research is funded an of course funding is only an issue if Exxon is doing it, right?
He who pays the piper calls the tune? So what if you want to play a tune that isn't popular - who do you look to to pay?
Oooh it's all the scary Koch brothers and Evil Exxon isn't it
and you suggest it is the skeptics that believe in conspiracy theories.....Feel the heat hype. It's hard to miss - some of the sourced examples are mindblowingly hyperbolic.
Climate Hysterics Skyrocket
Climate Hysterics Skyrocket
Link said:
And on the basis of these hysterics, we are supposed to give up...
Link also said:
Models that cannot be confirmed by actual observations are of little value and certainly should not be a basis for vital energy policy making.
Some good news for politicians' in-trays.
Mao et al: "recent global warming is primarily a result of natural causes" (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2019).
This paper's authors examine the last ~130 years of temperature changes and note that they fit “perfectly” with natural variation, and also point to a long-term cooling of the climate system (recently begun).
Statistical analyses rather than mere opinion are used to show that humans do not exert fundamental control over the planet's climate-modulating 'ocean stabilization machine'.
This is consistent with Fleming in Environmental Earth Sciences 77, 6, 2018:
"The logic of CO2 involvement in changing the climate will be investigated from every perspective: reviewing the historical data record, examining in further detail the twentieth-century data record, and evaluating the radiation role of CO2 in the atmosphere—calculating and integrating the Schwarzschild radiation equation with a full complement of CO2 absorption coefficients."
"The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate."
It's possible the above papers will not feature prominently or at all in the next IPCC report, we shall have to wait and see.
Mao et al: "recent global warming is primarily a result of natural causes" (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2019).
This paper's authors examine the last ~130 years of temperature changes and note that they fit “perfectly” with natural variation, and also point to a long-term cooling of the climate system (recently begun).
Statistical analyses rather than mere opinion are used to show that humans do not exert fundamental control over the planet's climate-modulating 'ocean stabilization machine'.
This is consistent with Fleming in Environmental Earth Sciences 77, 6, 2018:
"The logic of CO2 involvement in changing the climate will be investigated from every perspective: reviewing the historical data record, examining in further detail the twentieth-century data record, and evaluating the radiation role of CO2 in the atmosphere—calculating and integrating the Schwarzschild radiation equation with a full complement of CO2 absorption coefficients."
"The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate."
It's possible the above papers will not feature prominently or at all in the next IPCC report, we shall have to wait and see.
gadgetmac said:
They pay hundreds of thousands of $$$'s to an organisation espousing propaganda which will ultimately enhance their bottom line.
To say that this isn't evidence of self interest is pathetic.
Who funds Skeptical Science???
To say that this isn't evidence of self interest is pathetic.
Who funds Skeptical Science???
Yes research that shows flaws in our understanding of climate is propaganda Keep believing GGM and don't read the climate gate emails as cognitive dissonance can be dangerous to fragile minds....turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
No all McItrick did was produce the graph that you posted already, which tells you nothing about the effect on the surface temperature indices (hint - they use temperature anomalies not absolute temperatures).
Others have done the maths though and found little effect and even a reduction in the trend.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-les...
It's a yes, as McKitrick explained at the UoGuelph webpage. Clearly this revelation of loss of many high altitude / cold stations has touched a nerve as the warm bias introduced offers a missing link (adjustments to the data 'only' account for 0.6 of the 0.8 deg C claimed warming that some erroneously assume to be entirely manmadeup).Others have done the maths though and found little effect and even a reduction in the trend.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-les...
As indicated several times previously, anomaly is used and focused on by The Team as it's derived and manipulable. You must be aware of this by now.
Nothing you have claimed or linked to does anything to address the impact from loss of cold stations - 'nothing to see here' is just more misdirection from The Team's supporters who claim not to see it yet can see invisible things that ought to be visible to everyone.
Jinx said:
SKS KP? And you criticize WUWT? At least Antony Watts is not just an unfunny cartoonist. Why do you trust such an obviously biased source (that bans anyone who disagrees with them)? Anomalies are easily manipulated by the base period picked - and absolutes are supposedly the effect that we are watching for so why use anomalies?
Hypocrisy is par for the course with agw supporters in situations like this where SkSc Grist Smog and RC are offered as 'sources' while peer reviewed science (rejecting the agw hypothesis and demonstrating the hilarity of agw comedy predictions) is wilfully misdescribed. Not as much irony as usual though, more is expected 
https://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.ht...
Anyone with 'an ounce of nous' can see he does no analysis of the effect of the post 1992 reduction in reporting weather stations on the global indices. He just cludges all the data together and observes that if you remove colder stations the av temp goes down - surprise surprise! And you call this a 'revelation'
The subsequent analyses of the effect on the indices performed by folk like Zeke Hausfather etc found there was indeed 'nothing to see here' and as far I can tell they remain the last word on the subject.
All of this has been gone over here before of course.
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 22 January 11:11
Jinx said:
gadgetmac said:
They pay hundreds of thousands of $$$'s to an organisation espousing propaganda which will ultimately enhance their bottom line.
To say that this isn't evidence of self interest is pathetic.
Who funds Skeptical Science???
To say that this isn't evidence of self interest is pathetic.
Who funds Skeptical Science???
Yes research that shows flaws in our understanding of climate is propaganda Keep believing GGM and don't read the climate gate emails as cognitive dissonance can be dangerous to fragile minds....Follow the money and the pea: USA conservatives want a more permanent exit from Paris climate accord (Washington Times).
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/20/c...
That's climate politics for ya.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/20/c...
That's climate politics for ya.
kerplunk said:
lol, here is the McItrick page link again:
https://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.ht...
Anyone with 'an ounce of nous' can see he does no analysis of the effect of the post 1992 reductioin in reporting weather stations on the global indices. He just cludges all the data together and observes that if you remove colder stations the av temp goes down - surprise surprise! And you call this a 'revelation' :lol:
The subsequent analyses of the effect on the indices performed by folk like Zeke Hausfather etc found there was indeed 'nothing to see here' and as far I can tell they remain the last word subject.
All of this has been gone over here before of course.
You still haven't provided anything that anays the effect of the post 1992 reduction in reporting weather stations on the global indices.
There are links in the SKS to credible poeple who analysed the effect back when this was the sceptic topic de jour for a while nearly ten years ago and found no effect. As far as I can see those analyses were the last word on the subject.
Come back to me when you have something interesting to say on it.
KP how can we re-run the figures for the global indices without access to all of the code and raw data that generates all of the indices? Given the "credible people" have skin in the game are they as credible as you would have us believe (heck if they have links to SKS I would cast doubt on this)?https://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.ht...
Anyone with 'an ounce of nous' can see he does no analysis of the effect of the post 1992 reductioin in reporting weather stations on the global indices. He just cludges all the data together and observes that if you remove colder stations the av temp goes down - surprise surprise! And you call this a 'revelation' :lol:
The subsequent analyses of the effect on the indices performed by folk like Zeke Hausfather etc found there was indeed 'nothing to see here' and as far I can tell they remain the last word subject.
All of this has been gone over here before of course.
You still haven't provided anything that anays the effect of the post 1992 reduction in reporting weather stations on the global indices.
There are links in the SKS to credible poeple who analysed the effect back when this was the sceptic topic de jour for a while nearly ten years ago and found no effect. As far as I can see those analyses were the last word on the subject.
Come back to me when you have something interesting to say on it.
From a logical point of view you would need to remove all the stations from the earlier data that are no longer in the later data to allow for proper comparison. Whist this reduces coverage it allows for trends to be determined.
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
They pay hundreds of thousands of $$$'s to an organisation espousing propaganda which will ultimately enhance their bottom line.
To say that this isn't evidence of self interest is pathetic.
Who funds Skeptical Science???
Doesn't Dana Nuccitelli work for Tetra Tech? To say that this isn't evidence of self interest is pathetic.
Who funds Skeptical Science???
I'm starting to think you're a troll account.Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
lol, here is the McItrick page link again:
https://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.ht...
Anyone with 'an ounce of nous' can see he does no analysis of the effect of the post 1992 reductioin in reporting weather stations on the global indices. He just cludges all the data together and observes that if you remove colder stations the av temp goes down - surprise surprise! And you call this a 'revelation' :lol:
The subsequent analyses of the effect on the indices performed by folk like Zeke Hausfather etc found there was indeed 'nothing to see here' and as far I can tell they remain the last word subject.
All of this has been gone over here before of course.
You still haven't provided anything that anays the effect of the post 1992 reduction in reporting weather stations on the global indices.
There are links in the SKS to credible poeple who analysed the effect back when this was the sceptic topic de jour for a while nearly ten years ago and found no effect. As far as I can see those analyses were the last word on the subject.
Come back to me when you have something interesting to say on it.
KP how can we re-run the figures for the global indices without access to all of the code and raw data that generates all of the indices? Given the "credible people" have skin in the game are they as credible as you would have us believe (heck if they have links to SKS I would cast doubt on this)?https://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.ht...
Anyone with 'an ounce of nous' can see he does no analysis of the effect of the post 1992 reductioin in reporting weather stations on the global indices. He just cludges all the data together and observes that if you remove colder stations the av temp goes down - surprise surprise! And you call this a 'revelation' :lol:
The subsequent analyses of the effect on the indices performed by folk like Zeke Hausfather etc found there was indeed 'nothing to see here' and as far I can tell they remain the last word subject.
All of this has been gone over here before of course.
You still haven't provided anything that anays the effect of the post 1992 reduction in reporting weather stations on the global indices.
There are links in the SKS to credible poeple who analysed the effect back when this was the sceptic topic de jour for a while nearly ten years ago and found no effect. As far as I can see those analyses were the last word on the subject.
Come back to me when you have something interesting to say on it.
From a logical point of view you would need to remove all the stations from the earlier data that are no longer in the later data to allow for proper comparison. Whist this reduces coverage it allows for trends to be determined.
The hypothesis is easily tested by removing the pre 1992 data (that ended in 1992) from the data. If removing that 'colder' data has no effect on the pre-1992 trend then there is little reason to think ithas any effect on the post 1992 trend.
Here's Lucia at The Blackboard on it:
"We also see that absolutely no work is shown to explain why bias would rear it’s head, in this case knowing which thermometers were dropped, which that remain, and the knowing the anomaly method is used.
Quick investigations by people accessing actual data and computing “pre” and “post” cut-off thermometers suggest that when the anomaly method is used, dropping these thermometers as occurred in the 80-90s is not resulting in bias.
If Smith and D’Aleo have done analyses that detect the bias, they now have a very tough row to hoe. They need to explain how any bias arises and show it does. So far, they have not. So, until they show it… well…. We are we we are: No particular evidence the march of the thermometers caused any upward bias in the surface record."
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
They pay hundreds of thousands of $$$'s to an organisation espousing propaganda which will ultimately enhance their bottom line.
To say that this isn't evidence of self interest is pathetic.
Who funds Skeptical Science???
Doesn't Dana Nuccitelli work for Tetra Tech? To say that this isn't evidence of self interest is pathetic.
Who funds Skeptical Science???
It's not looking too good for the latest 'oceans ate Trenberth missing heat' paper, co-authored by Trenberth within the Cheng et al authorship team, which followed on rather quickly from the previous erroneous ocean warming paper in which errors were found and a published correction required.
I haven't delved deeply, and it deserves deep delving - this is what provisional reports say as of 22 Jan.
Second ocean paper in three months is refuted by independent climate scientist Nicholas Lewis
I haven't delved deeply, and it deserves deep delving - this is what provisional reports say as of 22 Jan.
Second ocean paper in three months is refuted by independent climate scientist Nicholas Lewis
Coverage said:
A scientific paper, published in Science magazine last week, led to widespread claims that the oceans were warming faster than previously thought, and received media attention around the world.
Less than a week after the headlines, an independent scientist, Nicholas Lewis, has found that the team led by Lijing Cheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, had made what he calls important factual errors. Lewis also says that some of Cheng’s statements are “misleading”
. . .
"Ocean warming appears to be very much in line with earlier IPCC estimates, when correctly calculated, and slower over the last decade or so than predicted by climate models”
More to come, for sure.Less than a week after the headlines, an independent scientist, Nicholas Lewis, has found that the team led by Lijing Cheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, had made what he calls important factual errors. Lewis also says that some of Cheng’s statements are “misleading”
. . .
"Ocean warming appears to be very much in line with earlier IPCC estimates, when correctly calculated, and slower over the last decade or so than predicted by climate models”
kerplunk said:
Obviously you haven't read any of the analyses offered to you because you have averted your eyes.
The hypothesis is easily tested by removing the pre 1992 data (that ended in 1992) from the data. If removing that 'colder' data has no effect on the pre-1992 trend then there is little reason to think ithas any effect on the post 1992 trend.
Here's Lucia at The Blackboard on it:
"We also see that absolutely no work is shown to explain why bias would rear it’s head, in this case knowing which thermometers were dropped, which that remain, and the knowing the anomaly method is used.
Quick investigations by people accessing actual data and computing “pre” and “post” cut-off thermometers suggest that when the anomaly method is used, dropping these thermometers as occurred in the 80-90s is not resulting in bias.
If Smith and D’Aleo have done analyses that detect the bias, they now have a very tough row to hoe. They need to explain how any bias arises and show it does. So far, they have not. So, until they show it… well…. We are we we are: No particular evidence the march of the thermometers caused any upward bias in the surface record."
That doesn't compute. By splicing the dataset in this way you can create trends that did not exist in the un-spliced dataset (think BEST). You create a false pivot point in the data trend which leads to an artifact in the trend that only exists because of the change you introduced (similar to Karl ship bucket "adjustments" that increased the trend gradient) . Trends are an emergent phenomena and comparing trends tells you nothing about the underlying data - to assume the underlying data is irrelevant because the trend is constant is false logic of the:The hypothesis is easily tested by removing the pre 1992 data (that ended in 1992) from the data. If removing that 'colder' data has no effect on the pre-1992 trend then there is little reason to think ithas any effect on the post 1992 trend.
Here's Lucia at The Blackboard on it:
"We also see that absolutely no work is shown to explain why bias would rear it’s head, in this case knowing which thermometers were dropped, which that remain, and the knowing the anomaly method is used.
Quick investigations by people accessing actual data and computing “pre” and “post” cut-off thermometers suggest that when the anomaly method is used, dropping these thermometers as occurred in the 80-90s is not resulting in bias.
If Smith and D’Aleo have done analyses that detect the bias, they now have a very tough row to hoe. They need to explain how any bias arises and show it does. So far, they have not. So, until they show it… well…. We are we we are: No particular evidence the march of the thermometers caused any upward bias in the surface record."
If A then B
B
Then A
form.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff