Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 19001 - 19020 of total 20085 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jan 31, 2015 - 08:52am PT
Right DMT. And endangered Polar Bears, blaming all adverse weather events on agw, the precautionary principle, "even if the science is wrong its still the right thing to do for the planet", and on and on and on aren't?

This is another strawman. Stay focused, bro!

DMT
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Jan 31, 2015 - 09:08am PT
Forget Climategate. This global warming scandal is much bigger.

Thanks to those objective, unbiased journalists at Brietbart, we see how numerous temperature records have been dramatically adjusted. The article is too large to C&P, so I'll just provide a link.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/30/forget-climategate-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/

Based on my first read, this looks somewhat damning. Are these rare exceptions? Is an equal amount of data adjusted downward? Or is this an example of our trusted government scientists gaming the results?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jan 31, 2015 - 09:15am PT
I see those objective, unbiased journalists at Brietbert have joined the 'hey look at Paraguay' denier meme.



Data adjustments account for only 3% of the global warming over the last 50 years.

BEST (partially funded by the Koch brothers) adjusts the Paraguay data with their own algorithms and comes up with similar results to NOAA
locker

climber
STFU n00b!!!
Jan 31, 2015 - 09:16am PT

"why did 100% of Repubs in America vote in people"...


"I'm a Republican and I didn't vote in any of those people."...



Well that took the wind RIGHT out of the sails...

LOL!!!...
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 31, 2015 - 09:52am PT
Based on my first read, this looks somewhat damning. Are these rare exceptions? Is an equal amount of data adjusted downward? Or is this an example of our trusted government scientists gaming the results?

Edward, it you're honestly curious about the science, and not just posting right-wing talking points, you could start by looking up what actual scientists have to say. About the surface temperature records generally or these latest claims in particular. The Puerto Casada accusations were instantly shown to be incompetent hackwork -- you've been taken in again! How come you couldn't guess that from the source?

Show some skepticism if you can.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 31, 2015 - 10:07am PT
Forget Climategate. This global warming scandal is much bigger.



Pretty funny, Climategate has been shown to have been a complete farce and a fiasco that was used to divert the lemmings who are easily swayed by FOX News and other right-wing 'news' outlets. How much money is given to groups to muddy the conclusions of real climate science, and what's the name of the popular blog that broke the scoop and perpetuated the bogus story?


Looks like they hooked you pretty good, EdwardT. I mean, you're asking us to forget something that has already been completely debunked and forgotten.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 31, 2015 - 10:08am PT
and who is James Delingpole?

I think he'd say "I am not a scientist, but..."

he should leave it at "I am not a scientist."

The methods for analyzing the world's raw temperature data have been explicitly described in many papers over a very long time. Questions that had been raised regarding these methodologies spawned the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) group who thought the criticisms were sufficiently credible to launch an independent study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

and it had the initial support of many well known skeptic bloggers, and it was not something that the climate science community particularly welcomed (because they believed that they had done the same thing and published their results)...

...as for BEST, upon releasing their results, the well known skeptic bloggers rejected them and the climate science community basically reacted with a collective, "that's what we've been saying all along."



apparently this independent review by credible scientists with no funding ties to the government climate research program is not considered "independent." The proof being, apparently, that they concluded the same thing as the climate science community had. It seems a rather foolish on those accusing BEST of being partisan, the very thing BEST attempted to avoid.

But in this debate, even on this thread, it seems that those who are arguing that this science is bogus also exclude the possibility that anyone who is a scientist is suspect and has no credible voice in the discussion. Oddly, anyone able to work through even the simplest papers is de facto suspect, since such people conclude that the climate science is credible.



If you seriously want to discuss the way in which the "raw data" of surface temperatures are analyzed (which we've attempted to do in the past on this thread, to no avail) we can dig the papers out and have a discussion. However, I doubt that is the intent when such a silly link is provided as a starting point in an endlessly circular "gotcha" discussions on points that have been very well established.

You might as well state from the onset that you aren't interested in the discussion, you're just interested in arguing... which becomes pointless if you aren't willing to accept the work that has been done to address the points.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jan 31, 2015 - 11:41am PT
The Chief...Your participation in the John Birch society is also moot...You going to attend the hangar moving party at Yosemite-Mammoth International...? rj
raymond phule

climber
Jan 31, 2015 - 12:32pm PT

Adapt to their surrounding infinitely changing environment vise trying desperately to change it.
Because trying to change it by not doing something is something bad?
raymond phule

climber
Jan 31, 2015 - 12:45pm PT
I really don't know what you are talking about.

Have humans made many mistakes because they stopped doing something?

I would rather say that humans have done some stupid mistakes because they didn't know about the consequences or didn't listen to the persons that did.

Leaded gasoline, asbestos, the gases that destroy the ozone layer and many more. Humans finally understood their mistakes and limited those things.

Burning fossil fuels fit well into those things but you seems to suggest that it would be bad to stop burning fossil fuels. Do you also believe that it was stupid to stop using leaded gasoline?
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jan 31, 2015 - 12:50pm PT
The Chief...I agree with your town council critique which leads to the question of why they would hire a couple of sailor guys to work at an airport....?
raymond phule

climber
Jan 31, 2015 - 01:27pm PT

That is NOT changing their environment Phule. That is changing their behavior.

In doing so, they are adapting to the surrounding environment. NOT changing it.


So make up your mind on your post....

I think that rick or someone that understands your thinking need to explain what you are saying.

Ok, so humans do something stupid like using leaded gasoline.
That changes the environment in a bad way.
They change their behavior which results in a change in the environment in a good way.

But that is adopting to the surrounding environment and not changing it??????????

But burning less fossil fuels is supposed to be changing the environment?
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Jan 31, 2015 - 01:30pm PT
I post a story, opining little more than "Based on my first read, this looks somewhat damning". Promptly, Chiloe, K-man and Ed Hartouni chime in with personal condemnations.

It's not enough to simply refute the content of my post. You felt the need to "put me in my place". What's that about?

Edward, if you're... not just posting right-wing talking points, you could start by looking up what actual scientists have to say.... you've been taken in again! How come you couldn't guess that from the source?

Show some skepticism if you can.

Looks like they hooked you pretty good, EdwardT. I mean, you're asking us to forget something that has already been completely debunked and forgotten.

If you seriously want to discuss the way in which the "raw data" of surface temperatures are analyzed (which we've attempted to do in the past on this thread, to no avail) we can dig the papers out and have a discussion. However, I doubt that is the intent when such a silly link is provided as a starting point in an endlessly circular "gotcha" discussions on points that have been very well established.

You might as well state from the onset that you aren't interested in the discussion, you're just interested in arguing... which becomes pointless if you aren't willing to accept the work that has been done to address the points.

--------------------------------------------------------


I thought this story might have legitimacy based on a quick look at NASA's data for Puerto Casado.

Raw Data





Adjusted Data



From what little I've read, part of BEST's explanation involved station moves. There's no record for at least one move.

I try to keep an open mind. It's a challenge with all the noise. But I still try.

Chiloe said "The Puerto Casada accusations were instantly shown to be incompetent hackwork".

Could you elaborate?
raymond phule

climber
Jan 31, 2015 - 01:39pm PT
And burning fossil fuels is not similar to all those things you said?

I kind of miss that sketch is not around anymore. I am sure that someone like him that understands the chief could explain what the chief is trying to say.
raymond phule

climber
Jan 31, 2015 - 01:41pm PT
Ok, I might get it. You can't see the result of using leaded gasoline or burning fossil fuels in the same way as burning down a forest so that is not changing the environment according to you?
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 31, 2015 - 03:05pm PT
I post a story, opining little more than "Based on my first read, this looks somewhat damning".

Well no, you picked a story, out of thousands about climate change. It’s by a right-wing journalist with a long history of this stuff (and no background in science), making false accusations of deliberate fraud -- which is and should be a firing offense among scientists -- without any evidence at all. So yeah, that’s revealing about you.

I try to keep an open mind. It's a challenge with all the noise. But I still try.

That was the point of my snappish post, actually -- you should try! Linking stuff like this is not trying. It's harder but try instead to learn what the scientists are saying. The vast majority think human activities are changing Earth's climate, why do they think that? You won't learn from sources like WUWT, or by reposting their stuff and demanding refutation.

On the other hand the many pro-science folks here would welcome intelligent discussion if you really do show an open mind.

Chiloe said "The Puerto Casada accusations were instantly shown to be incompetent hackwork".
Could you elaborate?

For real elaboration a place to start is this post on And Then There’s Physics, which drew more than 500 comments. In case that’s too much I’ll quote the first comment, by Victor Venema, a meteorologist and expert in exactly this kind of work (climatology from surface station records). If Victor sounds exasperated too it's because accusations of this sort have been flung and debunked so many times, the meme never dies.

Amateurs! With so many stations to chose from, they should have been able to find some where the non-climatic changes are not documented and could only be determined statistically by comparison with its neighboring stations. In the mitigation-sceptic speak that is called “no evidence” (at least in the last similarly stupid case with two stations in Australia). But, no, they have to chose a station where all breakpoints (non-climatic changes) are due to known station moves.

Christopher Booker: “To fill in the huge gaps, those compiling the records have resorted to computerised “infilling” or “homogenising””

Amateurs! There are more than enough mitigation sceptics what would have been willing to edit this article and who do know the difference between filling missing data & removing non-climatic effects (“homogenising”).

Christopher Booker: “This belief [that temperatures has suddenly taken a great leap upwards] has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).”

Amateurs! Booker thinks he is smarter than all scientists working on the quality of the station datasets, but he does not know the database of BEST.

Furthermore, both the dataset of BEST and the one of the Climatic Research Unit and the one of the International Surface Temperature Initiative contain large amounts of data that are not from GHCN. And he conveniently forgets the dozens of national weather services that all have their own temperature datasets, that all show an upward trend.

The scandals mentioned by Brooker in New Zealand and Australia are long debunked. Does that really need to be repeated? Just look on HotWhopper. Is he referring the to report of Anthony Watts? After which Anthony Watts co-authored Fall et al. with showed that the report of Anthony Watts was wrong?

ATTP: “As it stands, however, it does appear that my initial assessment that Christopher Booker is an idiot was justified.”

As a climate scientist I can naturally not agree with such a statement. But he does give the impression of being an idiot.
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Jan 31, 2015 - 04:35pm PT
http://qz.com/336517/iceland-is-melting-so-fast-its-literally-popping-off-the-planet/?utm_source=SFFB
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jan 31, 2015 - 04:45pm PT
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2015/01/30/if-all-you-see-1386/
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jan 31, 2015 - 05:07pm PT
Bennett points out that the last time its glaciers got skimpy—about 12,000 years ago—Iceland’s volcanic activity leapt thirtyfold in some parts of the island.

so is that the cart?

or the horse?
WBraun

climber
Jan 31, 2015 - 05:11pm PT
Human beings will never be driven to extinction.

They will be driven by material nature to rectify their ways.

Human beings are eternally driven by the higher authorities to rectify their poor fund of knowledge and that is why suffering exists .....
Messages 19001 - 19020 of total 20085 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews