Sit tight and be confident.
3 stations, Iâm flabbergasted
Do you know what cherry picking data means?
CO2 is a major driver of heating up the atmosphere. Most people realise this by now. Whatâs currently changing that? It really is that easy.
All science is contestable and scientists are capable of being corrupted by their sources of funding and being
dutchessed by the opportunity for their five minutes of political fame.
I have never been a fan of Flannery , who has presented himself as a climatologist when his expertise is as a paelontologist. But when you get the likes of Lord Monckton and a US oceanographer as the main people presenting alternative views, there is some suspicion .
I am more attracted to the approach of disciplined and objective scientists who address the methodology.
I love a left of field approach⌠and iâll admit i donât even have a straight field approach coz this topic bores me insanely but you my friend have twirked my interest⌠please do go on
Yes I do, it is what James Hansen did when he based his assessment his theory of Global Warming by using Paul Briffaâs samples from 33 trees and using only one, Yamal 06 to construct his Hockey Stick chart. Which as a matter of interest from which the CRU quietly walked away in 2013.
This was the same Hockey Stick chart so beloved of Warmists everywhere and was used by Al Gore to promote his insatiable quest for personal enrichment.
Did that answer your question.
Have to go now as I am being threatened of having a sleeping tablet forced down my throat.
1 Like
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
â Dwight David Eisenhower
Farewell Address as U.S. President (1961).
1 Like
The Illuminati ?
Science is like finding footy news in twitter, there is only merit in it if the source if legit.
1 Like
False.
In real science, phrase âclimate changeâ actually has a different meaning to the phrase âglobal warmingâ. 'âGlobal warmingâ refers to the increase in the net amount of heat retained by the atmosphere and hydrosphere - itâs a global measure, as the name implies. The phrase âclimate changeâ refers to the effects that this increase has on the prevailing climate in different areas.
However, in politicl/media debate, the two terms have long been used interchangably. This trend was originated in 1997/98 by US Republican strategist Frank Luntz (read his original memo discussing this here), and thereafter spread throughout AGWdenialist political parties all over the world. Howard was a big proponent of it in Australia, for instance. Luntz argued that using the term âclimate changeâ made it sound less catastrophic and more controllable than the term âglobal warmingâ.
Luntz:
Itâs time for us to start talking about âclimate changeâ instead of global warming and âconservationâ instead of preservation. âClimate changeâ is less frightening than âglobal warmingâ. As one focus group participant noted, climate change âsounds like youâre going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.â While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
I havenât heard about this particular tizzy that the denialist blogosphere has worked itself into, but Iâll make some predictions on how this will pan out based on this sort of thing happening many, many, many times before
- sorfedâs heroic heretics (you may roll your eyes now) will release their numbers, to great fanfare. It will scream âoh noes climate scientists changed the data! Soros Gore Flannery Satan!â 'It will receive a great deal of attention from the usual suspects in Conspiracytheoryland, and will get signal boosted as media outlets report on it uncritically because theyâre addicted to âreport the controversyâ even when the people pimping this latest bit of the âcontroversyâ have a long history of promoting baseless controversies against legitimate science.
- actual real scientists will examine the numbers. They will establish that yes, the data was adjusted, for reasons that are thoroughly scientifically solid and based on science that has been sitting around uncontroversially in the peer-reviewed literature for decades. The proofs of this will be long and mathematical complex and very few people will bother reading them. This goes double for the âscientificâ coverage in popular media, who seem to be constitutionally incapable of hearing about a AGW conspiracy theory without giving it undeserved airtime which goes only to portray a false equivalence.
- Nobody who popularised the original faux-scandal will bother addressing the refutations of their claims. Instead, they will continue to signal-boost among themselves and in sympathetic or incompetent media outlets. The âscientists tampered with data from 3 stationsâ meme will becomes as embedded in the heads of denialists as âno warming since 1998ââ and âCO2 is beneficial plant foodâ and âthey changed the name to climate change because the warming stoppedâ memes, and will be just as full of â â â â . Sorfed and his spiritual heirs will still be spouting it in a decade, despite it having being thoroughly debunked hundreds of times in the intervening years.
Iâm only vaguely aware of this particular storm in a denialist teacup. If you have a link that lays its claims out clearly then Iâll certainly have a look, but your assertion that Hansen (or anyone else rational) would have based his assessment of global warming on any SINGLE dataset of frigging tree rings rather than, I dunno, the many vast datasets of air and sea temperature measurements, satellite tracking, reflectivity and icecap coverage monitoring, solar intensity, rainfall, etc etc etc is so utterly laughable.and stupid as to be beneath contempt. Iâm not particularly across the â33 treesâ denialist meme, but from the outside it looks like a piece of incomplete or confusing data that has been seized on by people who donât understand it because it can be cherry-picked or spun to create useful denialist copy. Because thatâs the way these things tend to work.
Tree rings in the context of AGW science are all about paleoclimate. There are other ways to measure paleoclimate,such as ice cores and silt cores, so Iâd guess off-hand that this tree ring series was an attempt to get an idea of what paleoclimate was like in one particular area over a relatively short time window (the life of the trees) and there were only a few trees in the area old enough to provide useful data. And incomplete data is not great, but itâs better than no data at all, so long as you donât put too much weight on it when drawing your conclusions.
8 Likes
You missed the deliberate error and are out of the race, perhaps someone else will spot it.
A scientist cuts down 33 trees in one area of Russia and analyses the rings to determine the the past temperatures by proxy and another scientist selects ONE sample and totally ignores the other 33.
You have to be kidding me.
That one sample is what is known as a flier, and is ignored, the correct approach wold be average the non-fliers and average them, create a graph and use the temperature range inside the two standard deviations range.
But I only spent 25 years in QC problem solving anything from diecasting and production issues, paint testing and metrology and working with engineers and QC from the local and overseas car manufacturers, so what the â â â â would I know.
By the way, that ONE sample was used wholly and solely prove his point.
1 Like
What has being in QC and testing paint got to do with climate change research ? Take your pills and have a lie down.
Conveniently you missed the point.
Nope I didnât.
You are just so one sided you cannot objectively see anything.
Ok, best I help you. The point was selective âscienceâ to get a desired outcome.
Seems you do not understand scientific research either.
LOL you guys. Once again I repeat I am neither for or against man made climate change. It amazes me that every time someone disagrees with âthe messageâ of Climate change / man made warming you guys attack the messenger and not the issue bveing brought up. The issue is that âsomeâ scientists continue to doctor data to get the right outcome. That is bullshit and unscientific and why do they do it anywayâŚwhat is their motivation?
Quality Control uses Statistical Analysis to achieve insights into data, just like the ABS uses our data to get insights into the way Australian liveâŚits no different. Scientists and others use statistical data to arrive at an outcome with a high degree of probability. However if the sample data is tampered with or limited to only the data that derives that outcome, well that analysis is bullshit. You donât need to be Einstein to work that out.
The scientists that do this are hurting your cause not the people calling the issue out.
3 Likes