Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hawking: 'Trump could turn Earth in to Venus'


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

All you really need to know is how climate change works.  Because of carbon's absorption and re-emission of atmospheric heat is impeded by liquid water, warming is greatest in dry areas.  These include dry deserts and continental interiors in the Arctic where water is frozen much of the year.  In the US, the hotspot for warming is Amarillo, TX.  It has the greatest warming of any city in the country.  Back in 2005 I did a paper for a post-graduate class analyzing warming in Ft. Smith, AR, Wilmington, NC and Meridian MS.  Ft. Smith, being in the continental interior, showed the greatest warming.  Wilmington, being on the Atlantic coast, didn't show any.  Neither did Meridian.

Here is a list of the 25 fastest warming cities where Amarillo Tx does not make it on the list much less at number one. http://archive.is/RP6J3 (Climate Central.org)

That doesn't mean that you are completely wrong, but I'm throwing that on the table.

12 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Oklahoma has just come out of a major drought.  This is the third one since 1900.  We can expect another in the 2020s and 2030s.  We have also undergone 1.6 degrees of warming over the last 150 years.  Each drought is slightly warmer than the last one.  We have also had four major droughts since 1200 AD - tree-killing droughts.  One of these produced a phenomenon dendrochronologists call "The Wall."  There are very few trees older than 350 years because a drought about that time killed most of them.  I know of only two trees in Oklahoma older than 350 years - and one of those got bulldozed when the North Canadian Ranch rebuilt its fences.  The other is still alive and well and living in the Ancient Forest Reserve in Sand Springs.

Drought doesn't equate to Desert. Also droughts occur naturally with out invoking man caused global warming. I'm dubious of your claim that each drought has been warmer than the last.

 

12 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

If you are unable to apply Google Scholar to the problem of locating sources, here are a couple:

I don't have any problem finding sources. Several posts back you asked me for my sources so I figure you can go on and cite your own sources too then right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I agree that he is the President.  And I show him all due respect as such.  But he is dismantling nearly everything I have spent my entire life working on.  For example, he defunded the Fire Services.  If you own a house near a national forest or BLM land, you no longer have any fire protection.  I used to be a forester.  People like me fought and died to protect those forests and the people in them.  Check out Storm King, 1994.

 

Ok, now the White House budget for FY 2018 does NOT defund the Fire Services. http://archive.is/ESZtz (President Trump Budget Cuts Fire Service Priorities - IFCA.org)

Those are all small to modest cuts but certainly not defunding. That's pure Alarmism on your part here Doug.

16 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Just after he took office, Trump tried to remove research datasets from US govt computers.  Thanks to that effort, all those datasets are now backed up - he was too slow in issuing the order.  The Federal database stored at the National Labs in Boulder, CO is now backed up at the University of Arizona, at the University of Calgary and in Europe.  We thought it best to create backups in foreign countries where he couldn't legally touch them.  But just in case, there are hundreds of copies on private computers all over the world, including partial copies on mine and several unpublished ones.

His order to remove all climate change articles from govt computers "on pages facing the public" has been thwarted by creating private sites where that same data can be obtained.  Check out "Badasslands National Park." They're on Facebook.

Oh My! This is nothing but a leftist conspiracy! This all started right out in the open in December 2016 before President Trump was ever sworn in. 

"Scientists frantically copying U.S. climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump," by Brady Dennis, December 13, 2016, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. ( http://archive.is/EwAm5 )

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Here is a list of the 25 fastest warming cities where Amarillo Tx does not make it on the list much less at number one. http://archive.is/RP6J3 (Climate Central.org)

I couldn't get the links within the site to work.  Note that they took temps since 1965 - warming has been in progress since 1910.  Also, my data may be somewhat dated as I did that study back in 2015 from data compiled in 2012.  If you want to know what is really happening in the interior of North America, here is a paper:

Burnette, D. J., D. W. Stahle and C. Mock.  2010.  Daily-Mean Temperature Reconstructed for Kansas from Early Instrumental and Modern Observations.  Jounral of the American Meteorlogical Society. 

That doesn't mean that you are completely wrong, but I'm throwing that on the table.

Warming has been greatest in a belt along the 37th parallel.  There is considerable variation, of course.

Drought doesn't equate to Desert. Also droughts occur naturally with out invoking man caused global warming. I'm dubious of your claim that each drought has been warmer than the last.

True.  Droughts don't equal deserts, but desertification is accelerated by drought.  But here's a paper on desertification in the American Southwest.

Grover, H. D. and H. B. Musick.  1990.  Shrubland encroachment in southern New Mexico:  an analysis of desertification encroachment processes in the American Southwest.  University of New Mexico.  https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00138373.pdf

True that we have seen some worse droughts than anything that happened during the 20th century.  When most of the west was first explored (late 18th and early 19th centuries) active dunes were more widespread than now:

Muhs, D. R.  and V. T. Holliday.  1995.  Evidence of active dune sand on the Great Plains in the nineteenth century from the accounts of early explorers.  Quaternary Research 43 198-208.

Partly, that's because the dunes were kept active by buffalo and now all we have is people on dirt bikes.  I have a research installation at Middle Spring on the Cimarron Cutoff of the Santa Fe Trail.  The oasis that's there now is a far cry from descriptions of the treeless mudhole that existed in Trail days.  And the river is now lined with trees for hundreds of miles when it was bare a hundred and fifty years ago.  Buffalo grazing and trampling are the reason.

Anyway, I have posted detailed descriptions of climate change and the evidence supporting it on UM many times.  I don't have the time to do it all over again, so if you want to read it, go back and find those threads.  Or look up SCIENTIFIC articles from peer-reviewed journals.  You're not going to find valid science on most of those right-wing propaganda sites.

Doug

 

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Ok, now the White House budget for FY 2018 does NOT defund the Fire Services. http://archive.is/ESZtz (President Trump Budget Cuts Fire Service Priorities - IFCA.org)

Those are all small to modest cuts but certainly not defunding. That's pure Alarmism on your part here Doug.

That doesn't help the people who are being burned out this year.  There are currently 42 project fires covering 867,000 acres in 12 states.  That's as of yesterday.  That includes the loss of 500 head of cattle caught by one of the fires.  I do not have a count of the number of houses lost, but one will be available sometime this winter.  You are trying to minimize the impact on people who have lost everything because of Trmp's mis-/malfeance.

Oh My! This is nothing but a leftist conspiracy! This all started right out in the open in December 2016 before President Trump was ever sworn in. 

Absolutely.  We succeeded.  The data is now safely backed up in a package nick-named "the tarball."  I was part of that effort, so I'm not buying your "left-wing conspiracy" charges.  I didn't conspire with anybody.  All I did was send my 57 chronologies to safe locations.

"Scientists frantically copying U.S. climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump," by Brady Dennis, December 13, 2016, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. ( http://archive.is/EwAm5 )

If the Washington Post is your source of "science," then you need some new sources.

Doug

P.S.:  there have been at least two fires in which more than 500 houses were burned.  Marble Cone was one of them and I don't remember the name of the other.  I was on the Sugarloaf (Black Tiger) Fire in 1989.  We only lost 44 houses on that one.  Most of them burned in the first two hours.  I am a red-carded member of the Fire Services (Dozer Boss and Field Observer) with training as a Firing Boss and Crew Boss.

Even if Trmp realized and fixed his mistake for the 2018 budget, this year's damage is in progress right now and next year's budget won't take effect until Sept. 30 if the Congress doesn't spend too much time arguing about it.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I couldn't get the links within the site to work.  Note that they took temps since 1965 - warming has been in progress since 1910.  Also, my data may be somewhat dated as I did that study back in 2015 from data compiled in 2012.  If you want to know what is really happening in the interior of North America, here is a paper:

Burnette, D. J., D. W. Stahle and C. Mock.  2010.  Daily-Mean Temperature Reconstructed for Kansas from Early Instrumental and Modern Observations.  Jounral of the American Meteorlogical Society. 

I read that paper, it is chalked full of adjustments. Adjustments almost always show warming, so that one degree of warming the Paper is talking about is probably due to the adjustments themselves biasing the reconstruction. And hey guess what, temps sometimes go up and down over time as nothing but natural variation. Not to mention land use changes that affect temperature.

Here is a paper for you that shows adjustments account for nearly all warming in the NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU data.

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That doesn't help the people who are being burned out this year.  There are currently 42 project fires covering 867,000 acres in 12 states.  That's as of yesterday.  That includes the loss of 500 head of cattle caught by one of the fires.  I do not have a count of the number of houses lost, but one will be available sometime this winter.  You are trying to minimize the impact on people who have lost everything because of Trmp's mis-/malfeance.

No I'm not doing that. However, you are doing this catastrophic fear mongering just like Hawking! We are talking about small budget cuts not the end of the world! The Fire Services are still fully funded, just with slightly less money than last year.

 

12 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Absolutely.  We succeeded.  The data is now safely backed up in a package nick-named "the tarball."  I was part of that effort, so I'm not buying your "left-wing conspiracy" charges.  I didn't conspire with anybody.  All I did was send my 57 chronologies to safe locations.

"Scientists frantically copying U.S. climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump," by Brady Dennis, December 13, 2016, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. ( http://archive.is/EwAm5 )

If the Washington Post is your source of "science," then you need some new sources.

 

You succeded in protecting yourself from an imaginary threat. It was a lefty loony conspiracy and it is the date of the source I cited that was important showing this lefty freakout was happening in December a month after the election and well before the President elect Trump was even sworn in. 

Oh gosh. WaPo doesn't make your cut... ok so hard to know. How about NPR?  Note the date Dec. 14th 2016.

"Scientists Race To Preserve Climate Change Data Before Trump Takes Office," in All Things Considered, December 14, 2016, NPR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Tarball" is a bundle of files all compressed together. Rather odd to name the package after its own format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Socks Junior said:

"Tarball" is a bundle of files all compressed together. Rather odd to name the package after its own format.

Maybe.  But that's what they did.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

No I'm not doing that. However, you are doing this catastrophic fear mongering just like Hawking! We are talking about small budget cuts not the end of the world! The Fire Services are still fully funded, just with slightly less money than last year.

 

You succeded in protecting yourself from an imaginary threat. It was a lefty loony conspiracy and it is the date of the source I cited that was important showing this lefty freakout was happening in December a month after the election and well before the President elect Trump was even sworn in. 

Oh gosh. WaPo doesn't make your cut... ok so hard to know. How about NPR?  Note the date Dec. 14th 2016.

"Scientists Race To Preserve Climate Change Data Before Trump Takes Office," in All Things Considered, December 14, 2016, NPR. 

Washington Post and/or NPR will work for news if one remembers that they are not reviewed for mistakes prior to publication.  Take both with a grain of salt - about the size of those salt blocks they sell at Atwoods.

But for the science, you need to go to peer-reviewed journals.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

No I'm not doing that. However, you are doing this catastrophic fear mongering just like Hawking! We are talking about small budget cuts not the end of the world! The Fire Services are still fully funded, just with slightly less money than last year.

 

You succeded in protecting yourself from an imaginary threat. It was a lefty loony conspiracy and it is the date of the source I cited that was important showing this lefty freakout was happening in December a month after the election and well before the President elect Trump was even sworn in. 

Oh gosh. WaPo doesn't make your cut... ok so hard to know. How about NPR?  Note the date Dec. 14th 2016.

"Scientists Race To Preserve Climate Change Data Before Trump Takes Office," in All Things Considered, December 14, 2016, NPR. 

At least we succeeded in protecting the data from natural disasters, as well as political ones.  The Boulder lab was hit by a mudslide back in 2013.  It dumped three feet of mud against the back of the building, but never got inside.  That lab is way up on a hill.

I checked out the Fire Service funding.  Fire is paid for from the regular USFS budget.  There isn't a separate account for it.  You're right, the money is still sitting in USFS accounts.  But it's the authorization to spend it that has been revoked.  So it makes little difference where the money is, because it can't be spent.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

No I'm not doing that. However, you are doing this catastrophic fear mongering just like Hawking! We are talking about small budget cuts not the end of the world!  

Shall we go into detail?

"Trump is a sleeze."  Access Hollywood, Macron's wife - right in front of Melania, yet - Walking into dressing rooms at the Miss Universe Pageant.

"Trump is a bully."  The incident with the handicapped reporter.  His constant threats to sue people he doesn't like.  His calling a beauty-contestant (who looks better than that pot-bellied old man ever will), "Miss Piggy."

"Trump is incompetent."  No significant legislation passed.  The defeat of Trumpcare; his lack of knowledge about what the bill aid.  His lack of knowledge about what is legal and what isn't for government employees.  His attempts to defund science.  His appointment of incompetents like Pruitt and DeVos to head important departments.

"Trump is dishonest."  Trump University fraud.  Defrauding contractors at his hotels.

Whether or not you consider it important, Trump's son admitted to breaking the law regarding his contacts with the Russian govt.  His son-in-law has updated his security clearance form twice, adding more than 100 names.  That's a pretty good indication he committed perjury on the first one.  Have you ever seen one of those forms?  Every other sentence is a threat about what will happen if you lie or leave anything out.  And after you submit it, an FBI agent comes around and goed over it with you in detail.  You might forget one meeting or one or two people, but 100?  It's pretty hard to believe Junior thought he had a track on dirt on Hillary and didn't tell Daddy about it.  All he would have to do to clear up the Russia problem is put everything out on the table.  Publish the records and notes.  Then let reporters and investigators do their best.  By trying to hide everything he just convinces everybody that he has something to hide.

And it took him less than six months to do/not do most of this.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

More on Fire Service funding:  Tennessee has taken over fire funding in that state due to the lack of Federal funds.  Colorado has activated the Fire Fund, but that's really too small to provide the funds needed for an entire season.  The Fire Fund is tax-supported, so Trump has just raised the taxes for Colorado residents.

Somehow the Clearwater-Potlatch Timber Protective Association has obtained funds to keep operating.  They do TSI work as well as fire-fighting, so they may be using profits from Federal thinning/TSI projects to fund fire.  They are also partly funded by private landowners, so they haven't lost ALL their income.  People are getting inventive about getting around Trmp's mismanagement.

Of course, we're sort of used to that sort of thing:  Clinton decided to get rid of all those evil foresters who were cutting down trees - he fired 700 people.  That was in January; in May he discovered that he'd fired all his trained fire fighters.  The USFS tried to get them back, but most had either taken early retirement or were working at more-dependable jobs.  Several started consulting companies, including one who started his own one-man fire company.

Doug

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I read that paper, it is chalked full of adjustments. Adjustments almost always show warming, so that one degree of warming the Paper is talking about is probably due to the adjustments themselves biasing the reconstruction. And hey guess what, temps sometimes go up and down over time as nothing but natural variation. Not to mention land use changes that affect temperature.

Here is a paper for you that shows adjustments account for nearly all warming in the NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU data.

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Here are a few problems that require adjustments:

Time of day:  temperatures are lower at night and warmer in mid-afternoon - usually.  If you take your temperature measurements haphazardly during the day, you introduce an error into your data.  To avoid this problem, the time for taking measurements has been set at 7:00 a.m. Standard Time.  But what about stations that can only operate in the evening?  What about the scribbled note on the datasheet that says:  "I overslept.  Didn't get the data recorded until 9:30.  Sorry."  What about all those measurements that were made before a standard time was set?  (Standard time was adopted in November, 1883; Burnette's data go back to July 1, 1836 and mine go back to July 1, 1824.).

How do you change a temperature taken at 2:00 p.m. into the temperature at 7:00 a.m.?  You build a model of temps during the course of an average day in November, or March or June.  You do that with data from automated index stations that record temps every few minutes during the day.  There are such stations at Wichita, Kansas City, Manhattan, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Ft. Smith and Texarkana.  Make three models for the index stations closest to the station you're working with and average them.  The process for building that model is called regression modeling.  Burnette gives the models in the back of the paper.  Then you take the listed temp and time, feed those into your model and out comes the temp at 7:00 a.m.  Rather, an estimate of the temp, complete with probable error figures for it.

There are significant problems with missing data.  I noted that readings that should have been taken on Christmas Eve are frequently missing.  Also, the night Kennedy was shot we have very few readings - everybody was watching the TV.  Hee Mountain records were kept by an old farmer who didn't operate the station during planting or harvesting seasons and frequently skipped the hottest and coldest days of the year.  It got so bad, NWB shut him down.  Yet his records are the ones we have to use to calibrate the McCurtain County chronologies.  So we make estimates.

Plan B:  If you know the 7:00 a.m. temps at several nearby stations within 50 km, you can estimate the missing data point (Doesn't work for a station on a different observation schedule.).  This is done with regression models.  Temperature estimates done this way are accurate to within 1.5 degrees and unbiased.

Before Standard Time, each little town kept its own time, usually sun time.  7:00 a.m. sun time is different from 7:00 a.m. Standard Time.  All records taken before November 1883 have to be corrected for this.

Barometric pressure:  barometric pressure differs with elevation.  You can't compare two stations without correcting for this difference.  The readings are affected by temperature, so they have to be corrected for that, too.  That's a straight-forward plug-and-chug type of equation.

You can't estimate temperature changes without these corrections.  Your authors have successfully proven that they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Doug

P.S.:  I note they couldn't get it published in a peer-reviewed journal.  That says a lot about its accuracy/validity.  Also, no credible organization, such as a university, was willing to publish under their name.  They don't cite their funding sources or sponsoring organizations.  Research publications are written in Chicago or other similar format.  Theirs isn't.  Their references consist only of 27 footnotes and three of these are just them talking about previous papers and don't belong in the text.  Where are the hundreds of references one would expect from a scientific paper?  They didn't educate themselves by doing a literature review before they started writing.

Having been a victim of peer review, I can attest that it is not easy to get a paper published.  This one wouldn't even come close - and I'm being nice.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Washington Post and/or NPR will work for news if one remembers that they are not reviewed for mistakes prior to publication.  Take both with a grain of salt - about the size of those salt blocks they sell at Atwoods.

But for the science, you need to go to peer-reviewed journals.

Look there were dozens of news outlets with stories about this lefty freak out and conspiracy but looks like you will reject all of them as sources because you can't admit that you were part of this lefty lunacy and that there was never any threat to delete anyone's data.

Washington Post

Chicago Tribune

Metro News

Christian Science Monitor

NPR

University of Toronto News

The Rachel Maddow show, MSNBC

Yahoo News

Climate Central

Philadelphia Inquirer

BBC

Japan Times

The Chronicle of Higher Education

20 Minutes

University World News

Futurism

Lifegate

Ladyfreethinker.org

Society of American Archivists

The Late Show with Steven Colbert

Sciences et avenir

Technical.ly

Clean Technica

Greenwire

Tagesschau

Bloomberg Politics

Quartz

 

These are all news outlets that covered this nonsense between just December 13th - 20th 2016. Doug can tell us which ones he would prefer.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

At least we succeeded in protecting the data from natural disasters, as well as political ones.  The Boulder lab was hit by a mudslide back in 2013.  It dumped three feet of mud against the back of the building, but never got inside.  That lab is way up on a hill.

I checked out the Fire Service funding.  Fire is paid for from the regular USFS budget.  There isn't a separate account for it.  You're right, the money is still sitting in USFS accounts.  But it's the authorization to spend it that has been revoked.  So it makes little difference where the money is, because it can't be spent.

Doug

Again, this is wrong. The President doesn't even have the power to with hold "authorization" to spend this money that is in these departments budgets. The White House simply makes budget proposals, and it is Congress that actually disposes of the money as they chose despite what the White House has proposed. Once Congress appropriates funds then these funds can be spent. It is Congress who hold the Purse strings not POTUS.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The really sad thing is that we live in a world where people think they have to hide scientific information over fears of what the government might do with it. That should never be necessary in a democracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Shall we go into detail?

"Trump is a sleeze."  Access Hollywood, Macron's wife - right in front of Melania, yet - Walking into dressing rooms at the Miss Universe Pageant.

"Trump is a bully."  The incident with the handicapped reporter.  His constant threats to sue people he doesn't like.  His calling a beauty-contestant (who looks better than that pot-bellied old man ever will), "Miss Piggy."

"Trump is incompetent."  No significant legislation passed.  The defeat of Trumpcare; his lack of knowledge about what the bill aid.  His lack of knowledge about what is legal and what isn't for government employees.  His attempts to defund science.  His appointment of incompetents like Pruitt and DeVos to head important departments.

"Trump is dishonest."  Trump University fraud.  Defrauding contractors at his hotels.

Whether or not you consider it important, Trump's son admitted to breaking the law regarding his contacts with the Russian govt.  His son-in-law has updated his security clearance form twice, adding more than 100 names.  That's a pretty good indication he committed perjury on the first one.  Have you ever seen one of those forms?  Every other sentence is a threat about what will happen if you lie or leave anything out.  And after you submit it, an FBI agent comes around and goed over it with you in detail.  You might forget one meeting or one or two people, but 100?  It's pretty hard to believe Junior thought he had a track on dirt on Hillary and didn't tell Daddy about it.  All he would have to do to clear up the Russia problem is put everything out on the table.  Publish the records and notes.  Then let reporters and investigators do their best.  By trying to hide everything he just convinces everybody that he has something to hide.

And it took him less than six months to do/not do most of this.

Well should we list all of JFK's indiscretions?

How about Bill Clinton's?

Maybe Hillary Clinton's?

You want to know why I'm not going to do that? Because it would literally take me hours and page upon page to even begin to list them all! Yet the Lefties worship these Politicians (I'm being nice there <), but let a Republican do anything and they make them out to be the Devil incarnate! It's silly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Your authors have successfully proven that they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Not at all, it is clearly stated that "Such adjustments are necessary not only for current period raw data but also possibly for previously reported historical data." (Quote from pp 8 of the report PDF)

The problem that they note is that these Adjustments always induce warming.

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso. 

Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

http://archive.is/EvQuG (Daily Caller article)

Clearly the Authors agree with you Doug that "adjustments are necessary". The problem that they point out is the warming bias in the Adjustments and Adjustment on top of Adjustment after Adjustment has resulted in removing cyclical patterns with a warming trend that does not reflect reality.

The Trump Administration deleting data isn't the threat it is the Academic Gatekeepers of the Data falsifying the Data, adjusting it to better reflect their own biases and political whims until "our" History is distorted, that is the true threat the Data faces. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

The really sad thing is that we live in a world where people think they have to hide scientific information over fears of what the government might do with it. That should never be necessary in a democracy. 

The Left has become the Party/Ideology of Chicken Little! The Sky is OMG FALLING!!! And over ever little single thing that does not fall 100% within their agenda at all times. This would be hilarious if not for the fact that about just under half the population listens to Chicken Little!

So you are right. It is really sad that we have to put up with this in a "Democracy" (actually a Republic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Maybe.  But that's what they did.

Probably why they had to save the data. All copies hanging around were named "text.txt" and "data.dat" and therefore really hard to find. Hopefully the magical tarball has more useful names for its data streams when uncompressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

The Left has become the Party/Ideology of Chicken Little! The Sky is OMG FALLING!!! And over ever little single thing that does not fall 100% within their agenda at all times. This would be hilarious if not for the fact that about just under half the population listens to Chicken Little!

I agree that Mr. hawking was being hyperbolic with his statement, but that does not mean that climate change isn't a real problem.

Manmade climate change is not a political question, it's a scientific question. What to do about it is a political question. 

So instead of trying to brush it it off as a left wing conspiracy, why not just be honest about it and say that you know it's a problem, but you just don't think it's big enough to warrant any action. Why the need to politicize it ?   

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

So you are right. It is really sad that we have to put up with this in a "Democracy" (actually a Republic).

The US is actually both a democracy and a republic. Its two different things and are not mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I agree that Mr. hawking was being hyperbolic with his statement, but that does not mean that climate change isn't a real problem.

Manmade climate change is not a political question, it's a scientific question. What to do about it is a political question. 

So instead of trying to brush it it off as a left wing conspiracy, why not just be honest about it and say that you know it's a problem, but you just don't think it's big enough to warrant any action. Why the need to politicize it ?   

First, lets be clear here, I never said Global warming or "climate change" is a left conspiracy. Now I did say the whole "Trump's going to delete our data" freakout thing was a leftist conspiracy. Maybe that is were the confusion arose?

Also, it was not I who politicized all of this. For that you can blame the left and all who buy into the doom and gloom stuff they constantly regurgitate.

Second, you believe that climate change (global warming) is a problem; I do not. Why do you assume that I can not be honest with out believing as you do that it is a "problem"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 5:54 PM, lost_shaman said:

Look there were dozens of news outlets with stories about this lefty freak out and conspiracy but looks like you will reject all of them as sources because you can't admit that you were part of this lefty lunacy and that there was never any threat to delete anyone's data.

Washington Post

Chicago Tribune

Metro News

Christian Science Monitor

NPR

University of Toronto News

The Rachel Maddow show, MSNBC

Yahoo News

Climate Central

Philadelphia Inquirer

BBC

Japan Times

The Chronicle of Higher Education

20 Minutes

University World News

Futurism

Lifegate

Ladyfreethinker.org

Society of American Archivists

The Late Show with Steven Colbert

Sciences et avenir

Technical.ly

Clean Technica

Greenwire

Tagesschau

Bloomberg Politics

Quartz

 

These are all news outlets that covered this nonsense between just December 13th - 20th 2016. Doug can tell us which ones he would prefer.

 

I think that because the data were already safe (mostly) by the time Trmp took office and because of the storm of opposition he encountered when he ordered climate information removed from govt websites, he backed off.  The guy isn't one for a good political fight.

The backup of datasets was something that should have been done long before.  As I mentioned above, we came close to losing the tree-ring data in September 2013 due to a mudslide.  A disaster the size of Katrina could destroy the entire world's database if it wasn't back up.  The backup was done in late 2016 simply because nobody trusts Trmp.  Look at the damage he has done by appointing DeVos and Pruitt.  He could do a lot worse and probably would if they weren't keeping him busy with the Russian investigation.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 1:37 PM, Doug1o29 said:

P.S.:  I note they couldn't get it published in a peer-reviewed journal.  That says a lot about its accuracy/validity.  Also, no credible organization, such as a university, was willing to publish under their name.  They don't cite their funding sources or sponsoring organizations.  Research publications are written in Chicago or other similar format.  Theirs isn't.  Their references consist only of 27 footnotes and three of these are just them talking about previous papers and don't belong in the text.  Where are the hundreds of references one would expect from a scientific paper?  They didn't educate themselves by doing a literature review before they started writing.

Doug

P.P.S.:  I suspect that paper was submitted to a journal and failed peer review.  The reason would be that they didn't correct for known problems in the data and so produced nothing but numerical gibberish.  In order to publish in a scientific journal, you must actually do science.

Doug

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 9:39 PM, Socks Junior said:

Probably why they had to save the data. All copies hanging around were named "text.txt" and "data.dat" and therefore really hard to find. Hopefully the magical tarball has more useful names for its data streams when uncompressed.

I don't know about that; I have never downloaded it.  On the NOAA website, one searches for chronologies by name, or author or species, or location, or age, or any combination of the above.  If something happened to the NOAA dataset, U of Arizona will take over in a few minutes.  NOAA can retrieve copies of its data and programs from them and restore its site and be back up and running in hours.

There are a bunch of dendro programs available for free on Henri Grissino-Mayer's "Ultimate Tree Ring" website.  All you have to do is download them.  These are all old programs that have been mostly replaced by better versions - but you have to pay for the better versions, so lots of people stick to the old ones.

 

 

For Lost_shaman:  Hawking is exaggerating.  On purpose?  Maybe.  But probably only because he isn't up to date on the effects of carbon in the atmosphere.  A lot has changed since Hansen's book in 2010.  It is hard for a climate professional to keep up with all the literature that's coming out and Hawking is a physicist and has other fields to keep up in.

About your list of popular press publications:  I am a fan of Rachel Maddow, but I have caught her in a number of mistakes.  So I take what she says with a large grain of salt.  That would apply to any of the publications you listed, but particularly to any publication dealing with politics or business.  None of those publications are peer-reviewed, so mistakes frequently get through.  Even peer review is no guarantee.  I don't know if it is even possible to peer-review a political article.  Seems to me they're all just opinion pieces, anyway.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.