The big climate-change myth

[Elfin]

Remember how March was really cold with frozen snow on the ground all month? I heard someone being interviewed who said this was evidence of climate change. And then the hot and humid July was also taken as evidence of climate change. In other words, whatever the weather does it is evidence of climate change. This is not science, it is propaganda.

Follow the money trail, if you want to know who's pushing the climate change agenda.

[Guest]

Remember how March was really cold with frozen snow on the ground all month? I heard someone being interviewed who said this was evidence of climate change. And then the hot and humid July was also taken as evidence of climate change. In other words, whatever the weather does it is evidence of climate change. This is not science, it is propaganda.

Follow the money trail, if you want to know who's pushing the climate change agenda.

Two predictions - an overall trend upwards in the energy budget of the planet.

More extreme weather events on a regional basis.

The second describes what has happened in Northern Europe this year - so strictly speaking the commentator is correct if a statistically meaningful trend upwards in extreme weather events for Northern Europe can be found. This has already been demonstrated across Europe with meaurable increases in heat waves and extreme precipitation events.

It is the extremeness of the weather events we have experienced which is significant here.

Br Cornelius

[Elfin]

Two predictions - an overall trend upwards in the energy budget of the planet.

More extreme weather events on a regional basis.

The second describes what has happened in Northern Europe this year - so strictly speaking the commentator is correct if a statistically meaningful trend upwards in extreme weather events for Northern Europe can be found. This has already been demonstrated across Europe with meaurable increases in heat waves and extreme precipitation events.

It is the extremeness of the weather events we have experienced which is significant here.

Br Cornelius

This is precisely what I was talking about. With a little special pleading, anything can be used as evidence for global warming.

[Guest]

This is precisely what I was talking about. With a little special pleading, anything can be used as evidence for global warming.

Its the statistical analysis which tells us the truth - not the comment in news papers or from pundits.

This year can only be judged in its contribution to the trend progression.

Br Cornelius

[Elfin]

Its the statistical analysis which tells us the truth - not the comment in news papers or from pundits.

This year can only be judged in its contribution to the trend progression.

Br Cornelius

Yes, the "trend progression". And if that doesn't work, try reversing the polarity.

[Guest]

Yes, the "trend progression". And if that doesn't work, try reversing the polarity.

Care to clarify the specific thing your are eluding to there ?

Innuendo is unbecoming a lady.

Br Cornelius

[Elfin]

Care to clarify the specific thing your are eluding to there ?

Innuendo is unbecoming a lady.

Br Cornelius

Technobabble.

[Guest]

Technobabble.

If your not going to get to grips with basic technical terms like a statistically meaningful trend, then I suppose your right - its all technobabble.

Br Cornelius

[Elfin]

If your not going to get to grips with basic technical terms like a statistically meaningful trend, then I suppose your right - its all technobabble.

Br Cornelius

It's like a religion. Self-appointed "experts" inventing jargon to back up their claims, labelling the rest of us as ignorant.

[Guest]

It's like a religion. Self-appointed "experts" inventing jargon to back up their claims, labelling the rest of us as ignorant.

Would you accept a treatment for breast cancer from someone who hadn't done research showing a Statistically meaningful correlation between the treatment and a cure.

These are basic technical terms, without which you can't discuss technical issues and you become prey to sharks who will say anything to further an agenda.

Science and statistical analysis are our shield against snake oil salesmen and superstition.

Br Cornelius

[Elfin]

Would you accept a treatment for breast cancer from someone who hadn't done research showing a Statistically meaningful correlation between the treatment and a cure.

These are basic technical terms, without which you can't discuss technical issues and you become prey to sharks who will say anything to further an agenda.

Science and statistical analysis are our shield against snake oil salesmen and superstition.

Br Cornelius

Medical treatments are subject to experiment. Global warming isn't.

[Little Fish]

sharks who will say anything to further an agenda.

ohhh, the irony.

"Science and statistical analysis are our shield against snake oil salesmen and superstition.

there is good science and bad science, how did you determine what is good and what is bad?

of course the trick was just a statistical analysis wasn't it, but the real "trick" was hiding the decline.

[Little Fish]

Where can I see Soon paper?

second link in this post

http://www.unexplain...90#entry4922946

Soon shows near perfect correlation between the SAT of Polyakov and the solar activity reconstruction of Hoyt in the arctic. the accusation of cherry picking is false since it is clear the papers intent is to talk about the arctic only and not global. the accusation of not peer reviewed is false, the accusation of not properly published is absurd given that GRL is a fast track journal and a major journal for climate scientists frequently used and cited (even cited by those that use that accusation), the accusations of oil funded are asinine, funding is properly declared in the paper and all scientists are funded by someone and many in the CAGW camp have been funded by oil companies including phil jones of the cru from climategate infamy who was funded millions of pounds, warming cultist dana nuccitelli of SKS hides the fact he works for an oil company apparantly.

http://wattsupwithth...st-oil-and-gas/

Little Fish whats your basic evidence that GW caused by humanity is myth?

I have seen no empirical evidence for it (in terms of dangerous AGW), if you can show me a leprechaun I'll believe you, but i can't prove they don't exist. (impenetrable computer models and irish midgets in green suits don't count).

Edited September 21, 2013 by Little Fish

[freetoroam]

I am curious what you might mean by the earth will keep going. Of course no one is suggesting that global warming will destroy the planet, but life on it might end if a runaway greenhouse gas event were to happen.

Some assume that if man can`t survive after poisoning himself, then nothing else can. Gas`s are part of this planet, because it is not what we should be breathing in does not mean that other life can not survive either. There is many other living life forms on Earth which are surviving under conditions which can not, so what makes people think anything will drastically change once we are gone. Who knows what other life forms will come along and relish in the gas`s which once killed us off?

[Little Fish]

Cherry picking has a specific meaning - choosing a piece of evidence which runs counter the what the majority of the data tells you. A specific example would be using the temperature in one location to infer the temperature in all locations. The data chosen is chosen to make a point which isn't supported by the majority of the data, even though in a limited but defined context it is true.

Cherry Picking presupposes an intent to mislead by stating something which is true for one instance but untrue to the general.

Soon has done this on multiple studies - deciding on his conclusion and then hunting for data which supports his conclusion whilst ignoring the body of evidence. An example is;

http://www.realclima...ow-soon-is-now/

That is what Cherry Picking looks like, and it is dishonest in intent and could easily have been corrected if the intent of Soon hadn't been to deceive his audience. It just a good job that his audience included scientists who could find his dishonesty. The reason i am so distrustful of anything Willie Soon says is because nearly every pronouncement he has made regarding issues connected to his main sponsors (the fossil fuel industry) has shown such similar levels of bias - hence he has about zero credibility as a scientist at this stage. he can probably happily sit back and enjoy his one million dollars of research funding from the oil industry - picking up a bit of lecture touring for the Heartland Institute as he goes along. Honesty seems to have a price.

Hope that helps.

Br Cornelius

that post is just one massive ad hominem fallacy.

you have not supported your accusation with anything substantial.

did Soon ignore any contrary temperature data from Polykov?

did Soon ignore any contrary data from Hoyt?

[Guest]

ohhh, the irony.

"Science and statistical analysis are our shield against snake oil salesmen and superstition.

there is good science and bad science, how did you determine what is good and what is bad?

of course the trick was just a statistical analysis wasn't it, but the real "trick" was hiding the decline.

Care to show that the decline was hidden and how. care to actual understand what the quote actually refers to for a change - the divergence problem maybe.

Good science can generally be discerned by the weight of evidence and the scientific consensus. Bogus science is generally fringe science. You are firmly on the fringe here Little Fish

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

that post is just one massive ad hominem fallacy.

you have not supported your accusation with anything substantial.

did Soon ignore any contrary temperature data from Polykov?

did Soon ignore any contrary data from Hoyt?

It talks about credibility, Soon has destroyed his by his data crimes. His bar of acceptance has raised significantly because he is no longer considered a trustworthy analyst. Its like asking a bank robber to watch the tills in the local bank - don't be surprised if you lose your job as a consequence.

Soon may produce a good report but don't be surprised when people distrust him and his work in light of his "form". there is nothing ad homonym in that. If you choose to take that statements of demonstrable manipulators at face value - then it says a lot about your standards.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 21, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

Medical treatments are subject to experiment. Global warming isn't.

Climate science has predictions which are Empirically testable. That is its measure.

It is no different to medical science.

Br Cornelius

[bmk1245]

It's like a religion. Self-appointed "experts" inventing jargon to back up their claims, labelling the rest of us as ignorant.

And who would be those self-appointed "experts"? Care to name?

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Elfin Im always stuned how brilliant you are. This is for you:

We are the stars, you are the universe

We are a grain of sand, you are the desert

We are a thousand pages and you are the pen

Oh Oh Oh Oh

We are on the horizon and you are the sea

We are the seasons and you are the earth

We are the shore and you are the foam

Edited September 21, 2013 by Big Bad Voodoo

[Doug1029]

It's like a religion. Self-appointed "experts" inventing jargon to back up their claims, labelling the rest of us as ignorant.

The experts I deal with on a daily basis all have the letters: Ph.D. after their names. It takes four-to-ten years of study to earn a Ph.D. in climatology or environmental science and another two or three years in postdoc positions learning how research is done. One does not need a Ph.D, to do good work in science; there's one scientist who didn't graduate from high school and there are several who have only a bachelor's. But they all put in the effort to learn what they're talking about. Most of the posters I see here haven't even read an introductory text on climate change. They're not stupid, but they choose ignorance. Those who choose ignorance SHOULD be labeled as ignorant.

Doug

[+DieChecker]

Would you accept a treatment for breast cancer from someone who hadn't done research showing a Statistically meaningful correlation between the treatment and a cure.

The problem being that those who are collecting the data are those who are telling us what it means. The Church once told everyone the Earth was the center of the universe and that the world was Flat, and the scientists of the time were forced to agree and say that the evidence supported these conclusions.

We are told by climate scientists that They are the only True holders of the Knowledge and Truth. When it is they who hold all the databases of data. Thus, they can make their own Truth, just as the Church once did.

Is Climate Change happening? Sure it is. But is every storm, or hot day, or lack thereof a sign it is an avalanch about to sweep us all away? I'm not convinced it is.

[+DieChecker]

Those who choose ignorance SHOULD be labeled as ignorant.

Doug

True enough. But, when proponents only use the words, "Trust Me...", over and over again, I tend to want to Not trust them. When outliers and strange readings, or short term trends want to be discussed, and are Shouted Down as Heretical. That also tends to kill discussion and cause Skepticism.

Edited September 21, 2013 by DieChecker

[Frank Merton]

True enough. But, when proponents only use the words, "Trust Me...", over and over again, I tend to want to Not trust them. When outliers and strange readings, or short term trends want to be discussed, and are Shouted Down as Heretical. That also tends to kill discussion and cause Skepticism.

You've created a big straw man there for yourself.

[+DieChecker]

You've created a big straw man there for yourself.

Exaggeration perhaps, but aren't we hearing the same responses over and over?

I've tried talking about outliers and short term trends and been told (basically) to "Shut Up".