DocM Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 The echo chamber effect exists in more than the acoustics journal, and in many cases it isn't the echo effect but downright fraud. Other times it's simply follow the leader (blindly.) The FACT is that ABSENT THE PUBLISHED CRITICISM OF SKEPTICS the 1936/2012 errors (and others) would have been perpetuated. Further errors would have resulted due to the bad data generated by the faulty methodologies. THAT isn't good science, PERIOD, and no amount of squirming or deflection can excuse it. I have a friend in Southern California who is a crackerjack mathematician and statistician. A consultant for NASA, corporations, governments etc. Analyzes Mars Science Laboratory images to relax, and generates code like a demon. Every time IPCC comes out with a report she pours over it, then she goes thermal because of how they manipulate their data. She's no religious or political zealot, just a steely-eyed stickler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vykranth Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 If the methodology and the datasets were that screwed up, I am going to say that climate change deniers would have demonstrated that for a long time. There are plenty of statisticians around, it is not that of a specific field of mathematics. Also, that would imply that the data retrieved by the American agencies, the European ones, the Japanese ones have all been cooked. What is next? The conspiracy of the New Environmentalist World Order that is going to destroy America and force everyone to eat asparagus? If climate change was a hoax, why would the Republicans keep defunding the research of the DOE or the NOAA? If they were that sure of their claims, they would have DEMONSTRATED it and gave irrefutable proofs! Or Circular reasoning: scientist cannot be trusted because the only other persons who can validate their work are other scientists? Edit: added a paragraph. Stoffel, LaP, SecretAgentMan and 1 other 4 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaP Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Denying climate change is beyond stupid. Now is it the act of human or nature it is another story. But we definitely need to look further into it. There's no reason not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 The echo chamber effect exists in more than the acoustics journal, and in many cases it isn't the echo effect but downright fraud. Other times it's simply follow the leader (blindly.) But only with climate science because I don't like that, All other science is fine I don't care about that. The FACT is that ABSENT THE PUBLISHED CRITICISM OF SKEPTICS the 1936/2012 errors (and others) would have been perpetuated. THAT isn't good science, PERIOD, and no amount of squirming or deflection can excuse it. Yes and it hasn't warmed since 1998 and there are no transitional fossils and carbon dating doesn't work what about that fossilised cowboy boot that was dated as millions of years old etc etc etc I have a friend in Southern California who is a crackerjack mathematician and statistician. A consultant for NASA, corporations, governments etc. Analyzes Mars Science Laboratory images to relax, and generates code like a demon. Every time IPCC comes out with a report she pours over it, then she goes thermal because of how they manipulate their data. She's no religious or political zealot, just a steely-eyed stickler. And ive got a geologist I can show you who claims the earth is 6000 years old, Again you are a science denialist no different than a creationist in fact you use identical tactics https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority Ill say the same thing to your friend in Southern California that I say to creationists, Put up or shut up if you think a papers metholidigy is flawed challenge it! And no I don't mean on twitter or facebook or BlogSpot anyone can do that I mean challenge the paper itself. And both creationists and climate change denialists have the same answer to their failure to do so = massive worldwide conspiracy; SecretAgentMan, blank, Vykranth and 1 other 4 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Answering proven charges and reason with ad homs and deflection is not proof of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Answering proven charges and reason with ad homs and deflection is not proof of anything. Yes its deflection to demand you challenge the science on somewhere other than twitter. Utterly pathetic kindergarten level debate :sleep: SecretAgentMan and blank 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Did or did not NOAA reverse itself and change methodologies after criticism by skeptics? Did or did not the hockeystick scaling misrepresent the optics? Etc. Is or is not it a GOOD thing to prevent bad data by correcting these methodologies when such errors are found, and who better to find them than SKEPTICAL outsiders? When it's done to oversee governments it's called being a Watchdog, but in the case of science the peer review systems ability to do it has been compromised. This is not news but a known and growing problem in the science community. To blindly believe that climatology is unaffected is the real denial. You, Sir, are the one that sounds downright Evangelical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Both sides are as bad as each other, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Did or did not NOAA reverse itself and change methodologies after criticism by skeptics? Did or did not the hockeystick scaling misrepresent the optics? Etc. Do you have a source for any of this other than blogs ? As with the creationists fossilised boot claim I find it very suspicious that they spout these testimonials with no source. Is or is not it a GOOD thing to prevent bad data by correcting these methodologies when such errors are found, and who better to find them than SKEPTICAL outsiders? Skeptical outsiders who misrepresent and cherry pick climate data to claim the global average temperature of earth isn't increasing ? I mean nothing special happened in 1998 when they claimed global warming just happened to stop what a coincidence. When it's done to oversee governments it's called being a Watchdog, but in the case of science the peer review systems ability to do it has been compromised. This is not news but a known and growing problem in the science community. To blindly believe that climatology is unaffected is the real denial. But of course you don't dismiss the findings of Astronomy do you ? Because that's not inconvenient to your worldview is it, No its just climate science that needs to be trashed. You, Sir, are the one that sounds downright Evangelical. Yes by demanding that you do treat these findings the same way as all the other scientific findings. If you want to convince me you need to provide more than provide blog posts because anyone can do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vykranth Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Is or is not it a GOOD thing to prevent bad data by correcting these methodologies when such errors are found, and who better to find them than SKEPTICAL outsiders? There is a whole gradation between healthy level of concern to batshit insane level of logical fallacies like moving the goalposts as shown in previous threads: "No the climate is not changing: you have to look at the last ten years" or "No, the climate is not changing, you have to look at the last 500000 years" Besides, most of these so-called sceptical outsiders ... yeah sure, and they are not Faux Noise talking points repeating parrots or on the payroll of oil & gas/mining industry? You know .... Lobbyists? When it's done to oversee governments it's called being a Watchdog, but in the case of science the peer review systems ability to do it has been compromised. This is not news but a known and growing problem in the science community. To blindly believe that climatology is unaffected is the real denial. Who or what oversee governments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaGinger Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 So, the lie of climate change due to Carbon Dioxide is now official to the BBC. A dark day for truth, I do not poo climate change btw. Carbon Dioxide, what a joke. Look at History. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionVoltss Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266188/David-Bellamy-The-BBC-froze-I-dont-believe-global-warming.html Just something on the subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266188/David-Bellamy-The-BBC-froze-I-dont-believe-global-warming.html Just something on the subject Where have I heard all this before ? Oh that's right.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ Same **** Different Science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Red King Subscriber² Posted July 12, 2014 Subscriber² Share Posted July 12, 2014 Where have I heard all this before ? Oh that's right.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ Oh gawd that propaganda documentary... I feel sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 So, the lie of climate change due to Carbon Dioxide is now official to the BBC. A dark day for truth, I do not poo climate change btw. Carbon Dioxide, what a joke. Look at History. What does "look at history" even mean? Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, have been proven to be a major factor in climate change - their role has been thoroughly researched and is widely understood. Even those who dispute anthropogenic climate change accept the role that carbon dioxide plays. Please explain how you have come to such a radically different conclusion and the scientific rationale behind it. TPreston and SecretAgentMan 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Do you have a source for any of this other than blogs ? As with the creationists fossilised boot claim I find it very suspicious that they spout these testimonials with no source. > Yeah. My source is NOAA. Good enough for you?NOAA's original claim as it was reported by the willing idiots in the media, http://www.weather.com/news/noaa-report-july-20120808 NOAA: July 2012 was the Hottest Month on Record Aug. 8, 2012 In more than 117 years of records, July 2012 stands alone as not only the hottest July on record in the lower 48 United States, but also the hottest of any month on record in that time span. To put it another way, July 2012 was the hottest of a little more than 1,400 months that we've gone through since 1895. The report released by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on Wednesday says that July 2012 surpassed the previous record hottest month set in July 1936. That year was during the middle of the very dry and hot Dust Bowl era. Senior Meteorologist Stu Ostro (Twitter | Facebook) says, "Exceeding July 1936 at the peak of the Dust Bowl heat -- is BIG." > The claim was that July 1936's average of 77.4?F was exceeded by July 2012's 77.6 ?F. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/07 July 2012 Climate Monitoring BAMS State of the Climate > Climate Highlights ? July The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6?F, 3.3?F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4?F. After skeptics complained for 2 years about how NOAA synthesized "zombie" data from areas without temperature reports (no stations etc.) Recently NOAA very quietly revised its figures, this time without the fanfare and headlines in the supportive media.July 1936 is again the hottest month. Note also that July 2013 was cooler than July 1916. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/00/tavg/1/07/1895-2014.csv?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000 Contiguous U.S., Average Temperature, July Units: Degrees Fahrenheit Base Period: 1901-2000 Date,Value,Anomaly > 1916 07, 74.28, 0.67 > 1936 07, 76.8, 3.19 > 2012 07, 76.77, 3.16 > 2013 07, 74.21, 0.60 bradsday 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Yeah. My source is NOAA. NOAA's original claim as it was reported by the willing idiots in the media, http://www.weather.com/news/noaa-report-july-20120808 The claim was that July 1936's average of 77.4?F was exceeded by July 2012's 77.6 ?F. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/07 After skeptics complained for 2 years about how NOAA synthesized "zombie" data from areas without temperature reports (no stations etc.) NOAA very quietly revised its figures, this time without the fanfare and headlines in the supportive media. July 1936 is again the hottest month. Note also that July 2013 was cooler than July 1916. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/00/tavg/1/07/1895-2014.csv?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000 Is this a joke ? You really are talking about US land temperatures to try and debunk a global increase in average temperature :rofl: Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest. Pointing out that the USA had a hot year is not an argument against this. Even if I accept your conjecture regarding a conspiracy (Why the hell would they fake national temperature readings ?) theyarecomingforyou and SecretAgentMan 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted July 12, 2014 Veteran Share Posted July 12, 2014 And I disagree with you. Way long ago scientist said the earth was flat, and they provided "evidence" that it was. Anybody contradicting them was pretty much destroyed in one way or another. Horrible, HORRIBLE example! You're talking about a time without rigorous scientific methodology and strict peer reviewed checking. Today's science is, pretty much, evident if unbiased, which leads me to concede you're right about something: Politics have infiltrated science. Also, it is true that climate change is cyclical. However I do consider that this 'inconvenient lie' have made us aware of our impact in other aspects of nature. I can live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Is this a joke ? You really are talking about US only ? Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.And much, if not almost all, of the North American data comes from NOAA. Do you think there is a comparable number and density of data points in South America? Most of Asia? Africa? NOAA has an outsized influence. Have a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 And much, if not almost all, of the North American data comes from NOAA. Do you think there is a comparable number and density of data points in South America? Most of Asia? Africa? NOAA has an outsized influence. Have a look. We also have NASA etc, And still not a single shred of evidence regarding your fanciful claims of deliberate manipulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I'm a big fan of NASA, but remote sensing isn't 100%. That"s why they're still designing, improving and launching new satellites and hosted payloads on commsats. I once had a radiometer tell me an ice cube was at 65?F. Uhh...yeah. Data manipulation/creation for filling in mass quantities of missing data points as they did is deliberate by definition, it isn't done by accident. The results being wrong also doesn't necessarily mean malice. You can get in a lot of trouble by being less than careful, practicing to not-invented-here, being an idiot, or by trusting your data set to students. Even grad students. Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I'm a big fan of NASA, but remote sensing isn't 100%. That"s why they're still designing, improving and launching new satellites and hosted payloads on commsats. I once had a radiometer tell me an ice cube was at 65?F. Uhh...yeah. Of course anything to dismiss science that conflicts with your worldview. Insert comparison to carbon dating being inaccurate by creationist here. Data manipulation/creation for filling in mass quantities of missing data points as they did is deliberate by definition, it isn't done by accident. The results being wrong also doesn't necessarily mean malice. You can get in a lot of trouble by being less than careful, ascribing to not-invented-here, being an idiot, or by trusting your data set to students. Even grad students. Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. Never assume stupidity when ignorance will suffice. Never assume ignorance when forgivable error will suffice Never assume error when information you hadn't adequately accounted for will suffice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Of course anything to dismiss science that conflicts with your worldview. Insert comparison to carbon dating being inaccurate by creationist here. I have no problem with carbon dating, evolution and a lot of the other distractions you've posted. Religious yes (a Lutheran) but creationist - no. They are not synonyms. Sorry to break your precious little bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I have no problem with carbon dating, evolution and a lot of the other distractions you've posted. Religious yes (a Lutheran) but creationist - no. They are not synonyms. Sorry to break your precious little bubble. But if you did you would use the exact same tactics (appeal to false authority etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Now you're reaching. First ad homs, then conditional ad homs. You are the mirror image of those you deride, an evangelist in the opposite direction. Have a nice life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts