If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hide the Decline)   So it was the HOTTEST YEAR EVAR in 2012? Yeah, about that. Don't forget to carry the one this time   (wattsupwiththat.com) divider line 118
    More: Followup, State of the Climate, National Climatic Data Center, CONUS Tavg, 48 contiguous states, data sets, temperatures, Global Tavg, National Weather Service  
•       •       •

5475 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jan 2013 at 12:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-10 07:36:42 AM
Ohlookabutterfly:
So hypothetically if climate change was irrefutably proven false are you suggesting that nobody would find themselves immediately unemployed?

The funding for climate (and climate-related) research is now twenty times what it was before the warming panic. So, if it were to go back to what it was before the panic, that field of research would get a 95% cut. Ouch.
 
2013-01-10 08:40:35 AM

GeneralJim: Ohlookabutterfly: So hypothetically if climate change was irrefutably proven false are you suggesting that nobody would find themselves immediately unemployed?
The funding for climate (and climate-related) research is now twenty times what it was before the warming panic. So, if it were to go back to what it was before the panic, that field of research would get a 95% cut. Ouch.


lh4.ggpht.com

Or are you one of those very special people who is convinced that global warming is part of a UN conspiracy to bring forth the New World Order?
 
2013-01-10 03:41:29 PM

LavenderWolf: Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs

You're an idiot. I can't even begin to address the reasons for this. I have a job, I am not trying to scare anyone. Climate change is real. It can be dangerous if left unchecked. But it is a solvable problem. Only a few greedy types and the nut jobs who go in for every sob story scam actually support things like carbon credits.

The only realistic solution is shockingly simple. Grow trees and bury them whole, deep under ground. Maintain an optimal carbon dioxide level by changing the number of new trees planted and old ones buried.


Yours truly; someone who doesn't think everybody gets by on Librul Unemployment Magic.


Wether I am an idiot or not is irrelevant, I can usually find a way to express my feelings and opinions without resorting to name calling.

See how I don't usually call people dumbass internet "authority on everything", or loud mouth douchebags within overblown sense of how important their opinions are. I also didn't call you a brainless sycophant who is afraid to have his own opinion in case it is unpopular and he might face ridicule from people like himself.
 
2013-01-10 04:07:09 PM
Funny story.

Remember those urban weather stations that are supposedly all screwed up because they are near heat sources or on baking parking lots or roofs?

Well, I went looking for another source on the Skeptics latest fap about the new record hottest year (seeing as Watts is a Climate Change Denialist) and found a Fox News article on the same adjustments that Watts is criticizing. Guess what? They are adjustments to eliminate the errors from those urban weather stations in heat islands!

Quote from Fox News:

NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen agreed.
"These kinds of improvements get us even closer to the true climate signal, and help our nation even more accurately understand its climate history," he said.
One problem in weather monitoring occurs when there is a "break point" -- an instance where a thermometer is moved, or something producing heat is built near the thermometer, making temperature readings before and after the move no longer comparable.
"Version 2.5 improved the efficiency of the algorithm.... more of the previously undetected break points are now accounted for," Smullen explained.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-q uestion-revisions-to-climate-data/#ixzz2HblkqH3l">http://www.foxnews. com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-q uestion-revisions-to-climate-data/#ixzz2HblkqH3l
Ha! Ha!

Denialists: Your data is faulty!
Climate scientists: We know that! Here are our corrections! They show that recent years are even warmer than previously indicated.
Denialists: You're making too many changes to the data!

Furthermore, the magnitude of the new high temperature (1F warmer is large enough to make the corrections to weather station data relatively insignificant. The signal is greater than the noise:

Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that the debate over the adjustments misses the bigger picture.
"Since we broke the [temperature] record by a full degree Fahrenheit this year, the adjustments are relatively minor in comparison,"
"I think climate contrarians are doing what Johnny Cochran did for O.J. Simpson -- finding anything to object to, even if it obscures the big picture. It's like they keep finding new ways to say the 'glove doesn't fit' while ignoring the DNA evidence."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-q uestion-revisions-to-climate-data/#ixzz2Hbm24g59">http://www.foxnews. com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-q uestion-revisions-to-climate-data/#ixzz2Hbm24g59

Although Fox News gives the last word to a denialist, the article is relatively fair and balanced (as web news articles from Fox tend to be, at least compared to to the Op-Ed circle jerks and hate-ins that pass for news on the cable news and editorial content.

Against the notorious denialist blogger Antony Watts, Godard, and the Hunts University academic denialist, Spencer, they cite a spokesman for NOAA and one for the Union of Concerned Scientists and a Government climate scientist. 3 for 3. Only the denialists have first say and last say, a common device for created a bias for one side of an argument.

Still, it gives the impression of fairness and balance, which is more than you usually get either from the right wing media or bloggers.
 
2013-01-10 04:07:25 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: LavenderWolf: Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs

You're an idiot. I can't even begin to address the reasons for this. I have a job, I am not trying to scare anyone. Climate change is real. It can be dangerous if left unchecked. But it is a solvable problem. Only a few greedy types and the nut jobs who go in for every sob story scam actually support things like carbon credits.

The only realistic solution is shockingly simple. Grow trees and bury them whole, deep under ground. Maintain an optimal carbon dioxide level by changing the number of new trees planted and old ones buried.


Yours truly; someone who doesn't think everybody gets by on Librul Unemployment Magic.

Wether I am an idiot or not is irrelevant, I can usually find a way to express my feelings and opinions without resorting to name calling.

See how I don't usually call people dumbass internet "authority on everything", or loud mouth douchebags within overblown sense of how important their opinions are. I also didn't call you a brainless sycophant who is afraid to have his own opinion in case it is unpopular and he might face ridicule from people like himself.



Maybe you can usually find a way to express your feelings and opinions without resorting to name calling, but you certainly didn't in this thread. Don't forget the very first thing you said in this thread was:

Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs



If you wish to see less name-calling or a better level of discussion, then start doing so yourself.
 
2013-01-11 07:30:25 AM
fritton:
It would be like a blind man being "skeptical" that the sky is really blue. Does the average person have the ability to be credibly "skeptical" of a study discussing the variance of beta-amyloid plaque formation in C elegans through different gene expression affecting metabolic pathways? No? How about if Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh all of a sudden publicly supported the findings? I'll bet we'd still end up with a ton of self-certified geniuses on the internet pretending they knew what the hell they were talking about.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see cheating, lying, and fudging. When someone fails to show the last 12 years of data, and then claims that those 12 years had warming, most people can see that (although not everybody on Fark, as we've seen.) When Michael Mann does a survey of the literature, surveying twenty-some papers, which he lists, of course, and claims that they do NOT show a medieval warm period, it is possible for a person who is not trained in sciences to look up those papers, and check. And, when EACH AND EVERY ONE of those papers shows, quite clearly, that there was a MWP, and the papers are from data from all over the world, it is quite clear that this is not honest science.

I have to cut them some slack, however. Deception is not normally the game of scientists, and they should be forgiven their ineptitude.
 
2013-01-11 07:52:00 AM
Harbinger of the Doomed Rat:
GeneralJim: Ohlookabutterfly: So hypothetically if climate change was irrefutably proven false are you suggesting that nobody would find themselves immediately unemployed?
The funding for climate (and climate-related) research is now twenty times what it was before the warming panic. So, if it were to go back to what it was before the panic, that field of research would get a 95% cut. Ouch.

[lh4.ggpht.com image 384x512]

It's annoying refuting the same dumb-ass arguments time and again. HERE...
 
2013-01-11 08:07:07 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
Of course, note that you've just mentioned Michael Mann, who publishes, among other things, reconstructions that extend further than the instrumental record (as in the graph above). If the instrumental record is "the only data that warmer alarmists want people to see", then why would such reconstructions be such an important part of his work? Do you honestly believe that "warmer alarmists" don't want people to actually see pre-instrumental record reconstructions like "the hockey stick"?

Well, ACCURATE ones. And, I don't care how unobservant YOU are, most people see a clear difference between the first and second graphs below, BOTH from the IPCC. Coming up with a graph which splashes a whole bunch of curves in one, as a lame attempt to justify it, as YOU have done as well, is dishonest.

www.realclimate.org

The IPCC, pre-corruption, 1990


1.bp.blogspot.com

The IPCC, with full corruption in place, 2007


And, which one do the REAL data support?


www.climate-skeptic.com

Loehle 2007
 
2013-01-11 08:25:41 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
More from the same site (new window):
I am not saying at this stage that the result for GISS is intentional or cheating. It could be an artifact of the way the data are prepared, how the gaps are filled in, a hundred things. Its a pretty
obvious form of analysis and you have to start somewhere.

in short, GeneralJim is directly contradicting the what the author of the very link he presents as 'proof' is claiming.

Bullshiat. The author is covering his butt, as auditors are wont to do. "This shows the signs of human tampering, but it could be caused by something of which I am not aware" results in many fewer lawsuits than "These books are cooked." This is the same process as determining the genetic fathers in humans. Technicians CAN say, "This is not the father's DNA" when there is a mis-match, but if there is a match, all they can say is that the odds that someone ELSE is the father are are greater than about seven billion to one against. In other words, roughly a one in five chance that a person who could also match even exists. Finding that person, and boinking them, is a whole different Springer show. So, you have the same problem if Jerry Springer announces "You ARE the father?"

You're grasping at straws here. You are implying that there could be, theoretically, some process done to the data, which could produce the "human signature" in the data. Okay, theoretical possibility granted. So, just what method or program does this? Its output could be tested, quite easily. there can't be more than one or two programs which massage the whole database... so, let's test them.
 
2013-01-11 08:31:56 AM

GeneralJim: It's annoying refuting the same dumb-ass arguments time and again


That's true. That's why people get annoyed when you and your green text show up because you are wrong. Every. Single. Time. You probably think that you've "won" a number of global warming arguments on Fark because people stop responding, when in reality you make it so distasteful to address your deluge of crap that people just don't bother. You're the guy that intrudes upon a conversation at a party, shouts that everyone else is wrong as you smear your feces on the walls, and then you declare yourself the winner when everyone looks uncomfortable and leaves the room.

Oh, by the way, making specious counter-claims with absolutely zero data or citation does not refute someone else's claim. When your entire rebuttal is "Uh uh, the oil companies will make MORE money due to environmental regulations!" with no citations or data, it just makes people wonder how you manage to operate a computer when you're obviously deranged.
 
2013-01-11 09:04:18 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Of course, Mann WAS cleared of wrongdoing by the same University which cleared Jerry Sandusky of wrongdoing, so he has THAT going for him -- which is nice.

Not quite true. Don't forget that Sandusky was subject to an internal investigation by Penn State administrators - nothing was made public. This is not true of the investigation into Michael Mann - the investigators were not administrators, but tenured professors from other departments, and the results were made public. In addition, there was yet another investigation performed by the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation, which corroborated the results. Not to mention the various investigations into the wider CRU e-mail controversy, which all exonerated the participants in terms of scientific misconduct.

Yeah, yeah... Read about the process used for the whitewash HERE.

Also, Mann has most likely stepped in it pretty seriously... He is suing people who have called his "hockey stick" fraudulent. Unlike at Penn State, there will be more than just Mann presenting the evidence against him on the honor system. The first court date is later this month, I believe... Let's see how THAT goes.
 
2013-01-11 09:36:51 AM
Harbinger of the Doomed Rat:
GeneralJim: It's annoying refuting the same dumb-ass arguments time and again

That's true. That's why people get annoyed when you and your green text show up because you are wrong

Blah, blah, blah. You forgot that bit about rubber and glue. Hey, are you REALLY so stupid that you can't look and SEE when data has been changed? Look at the historical data. Why should the temperatures for, say, 1935, be any different when looked at from 1980 or 2007? All the rest of the "irregularities" are similarly easy to spot. And, "the dog ate my data?" Really? Do you know what science becomes when you lose the data, and people cannot check your work? NOT science.

jonova.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-01-11 05:48:39 PM

GeneralJim: fritton:
It would be like a blind man being "skeptical" that the sky is really blue. Does the average person have the ability to be credibly "skeptical" of a study discussing the variance of beta-amyloid plaque formation in C elegans through different gene expression affecting metabolic pathways? No? How about if Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh all of a sudden publicly supported the findings? I'll bet we'd still end up with a ton of self-certified geniuses on the internet pretending they knew what the hell they were talking about.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see cheating, lying, and fudging. When someone fails to show the last 12 years of data, and then claims that those 12 years had warming,


If you're still talking about the BEST study data, be aware that you're pretty much outright lying here given that I've already pointed out to you why this is false. Even worse, you're making additional false claims about it in that it's impossible to "show the last 12 years of data" since you're talking about 2000 onwards on a data set released in in 2010.

And, as I stated before, these last years of data were not somehow hidden. They were right there in the paper, as well as being right there in the graph you yourself posted. Note how the top panel doesn't end at 2000.

As for "claims that those 12 years had warming" (again, besides the fact that it's only 10 years you're talking about) you'll have to post some evidence such a literally-minded claim was made. If you're allude to some longer-term trend, keep in mind what this guy said:

GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate


So I'll agree with you hat "it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see cheating, lying, and fudging" - however it is you doing this.


GeneralJim: When Michael Mann does a survey of the literature, surveying twenty-some papers, which he lists, of course, and claims that they do NOT show a medieval warm period, it is possible for a person who is not trained in sciences to look up those papers, and check. And, when EACH AND EVERY ONE of those papers shows, quite clearly, that there was a MWP, and the papers are from data from all over the world, it is quite clear that this is not honest science.


Citation needed, especially as you're outright lying in the first part of your post.
 
2013-01-11 05:52:59 PM

GeneralJim: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: GeneralJim: Ohlookabutterfly: So hypothetically if climate change was irrefutably proven false are you suggesting that nobody would find themselves immediately unemployed?
The funding for climate (and climate-related) research is now twenty times what it was before the warming panic. So, if it were to go back to what it was before the panic, that field of research would get a 95% cut. Ouch.

[lh4.ggpht.com image 384x512]
It's annoying refuting the same dumb-ass arguments time and again. HERE...


Your unsubstantiated opinion about some sort of nebulous "legislation" from some unknown place isn't exactly "refuting", BTW. Positing an even more vague conspiracy isn't an effective way of disproving the existence of one.
 
2013-01-11 06:00:23 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Of course, note that you've just mentioned Michael Mann, who publishes, among other things, reconstructions that extend further than the instrumental record (as in the graph above). If the instrumental record is "the only data that warmer alarmists want people to see", then why would such reconstructions be such an important part of his work? Do you honestly believe that "warmer alarmists" don't want people to actually see pre-instrumental record reconstructions like "the hockey stick"?

Well, ACCURATE ones.


people.virginia.edu


GeneralJim: And, I don't care how unobservant YOU are, most people see a clear difference between the first and second graphs below, BOTH from the IPCC.


The problem is that the difference isn't largely due to what you think it is. The first source of difference is due to geographic extent. As you well know the first one is a qualitative graph about only central England, the second one is only about the northern hemisphere, and the third attempts to be global. The second source of difference is the temperature scale. It's completely nonexistent in the first graph, and widely different between the second and third ones.

The only way to compare these is to graph them onto some sort of common baseline, but...

GeneralJim: Coming up with a graph which splashes a whole bunch of curves in one, as a lame attempt to justify it, as YOU have done as well, is dishonest.


...you're apparently not a fan of doing so. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is more of the pro-active ignorance that allows you to maintain your conspiracy theory thinking.
 
2013-01-11 06:15:10 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
More from the same site (new window):
I am not saying at this stage that the result for GISS is intentional or cheating. It could be an artifact of the way the data are prepared, how the gaps are filled in, a hundred things. Its a pretty
obvious form of analysis and you have to start somewhere.

in short, GeneralJim is directly contradicting the what the author of the very link he presents as 'proof' is claiming.

Bullshiat. The author is covering his butt, as auditors are wont to do. "This shows the signs of human tampering, but it could be caused by something of which I am not aware" results in many fewer lawsuits than "These books are cooked."


GeneralJim: Oh, boy! Yet another arsehole claiming to be able to read minds -- and failing. Nice work.

I'm sorry, but there's something fundamentally wrong with your reasoning when you're trying to state that the author really means the opposite of what he says.


GeneralJim: This is the same process as determining the genetic fathers in humans. Technicians CAN say, "This is not the father's DNA" when there is a mis-match, but if there is a match, all they can say is that the odds that someone ELSE is the father are are greater than about seven billion to one against. In other words, roughly a one in five chance that a person who could also match even exists. Finding that person, and boinking them, is a whole different Springer show. So, you have the same problem if Jerry Springer announces "You ARE the father?"


people.virginia.edu

It's closer to you trying to make the case that the results of the paternity test conclusively prove that the father loved the mother. There's more than one explanation there, as the author of the "proof" you're trying to use himself points out.


GeneralJim: You're grasping at straws here. You are implying that there could be, theoretically, some process done to the data, which could produce the "human signature" in the data.


Not quite - I (together with the author of the proof himself) maintain that there's more than one explanation than a "human signature".


GeneralJim: Okay, theoretical possibility granted. So, just what method or program does this? Its output could be tested, quite easily. there can't be more than one or two programs which massage the whole database... so, let's test them


Luckily, we can do so, as I pointed out to you in another thread. The source data and code are publicly available, has been recreated in Python, has been independently reconstructed, and has been corroborated through different records (such as the UAH satellite record that you seem to be fond of). Nope, no evidence of the supposed malfeasance you're talking about.
 
2013-01-11 06:29:38 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Of course, Mann WAS cleared of wrongdoing by the same University which cleared Jerry Sandusky of wrongdoing, so he has THAT going for him -- which is nice.

Not quite true. Don't forget that Sandusky was subject to an internal investigation by Penn State administrators - nothing was made public. This is not true of the investigation into Michael Mann - the investigators were not administrators, but tenured professors from other departments, and the results were made public. In addition, there was yet another investigation performed by the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation, which corroborated the results. Not to mention the various investigations into the wider CRU e-mail controversy, which all exonerated the participants in terms of scientific misconduct.
Yeah, yeah... Read about the process used for the whitewash HERE.

Also, Mann has most likely stepped in it pretty seriously... He is suing people who have called his "hockey stick" fraudulent. Unlike at Penn State, there will be more than just Mann presenting the evidence against him on the honor system. The first court date is later this month, I believe... Let's see how THAT goes.



That article has nothing to do with some sort of whitewash, as you yourself seem to recognize in your description of it. Every investigation has cleared him of wrongdoing so far, so if you're pinning your hopes on what may arise from an upcoming lawsuit, I suggest you prepare for the eventuality you're going to be disappointed yet again.

I'm sure the lack of a transitional fossil finding of wrongdoing will prove you right this time...

mimg.ugo.com
 
2013-01-11 06:33:19 PM

GeneralJim: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: GeneralJim: It's annoying refuting the same dumb-ass arguments time and again

That's true. That's why people get annoyed when you and your green text show up because you are wrong
Blah, blah, blah. You forgot that bit about rubber and glue. Hey, are you REALLY so stupid that you can't look and SEE when data has been changed? Look at the historical data. Why should the temperatures for, say, 1935, be any different when looked at from 1980 or 2007? All the rest of the "irregularities" are similarly easy to spot. And, "the dog ate my data?" Really? Do you know what science becomes when you lose the data, and people cannot check your work? NOT science.

[jonova.s3.amazonaws.com image 850x284]


people.virginia.edu

'I refuse to even consider the explicitly stated reasons in the published literature explaining why these changes took place, therefore it must be intelligent design fraud.'
 
Displayed 18 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report