Twenty Grand wrote: » Any evidence of government interference in the data collected? Or is this just another baseless soundbite?
TheQuietFella wrote: » It's like the who shot Kennedy scenario? We all know who was behind it but no evidence to prove it!
Anthracite wrote: » The real problem is the current industries that are run by people with 1-5 year horizons, heavily invested in the way things have always been done, who have the money to buy pet scientists, pet politicians and pet mouthpieces to distort the debate and confuse people who are naturally contrarian (like me) or natural right-wingers who are suspicious of science and change.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Need to fill us in there, who was behind it exactly? the Mafia? the military? the CIA? the freemasons? LBJ? Oswald?
Dohnjoe wrote: » "Man-made climate change is a myth!" We managed to put a hole in the ozone pretty fast
TheQuietFella wrote: » Did you see the hole or were you just informed about it?
Twenty Grand wrote: » I can't see WiFi but I know it's there.
TheQuietFella wrote: » We're going down the religious route now!
dense wrote: » Well actually the US government sponsored NASA openly admits it is responsible for adding a half degree of "warming" to the US record for the 20th century, which accounts for most of the "warming" over that period. In fact nobody can say what the US "warming" was without that half a degree added. (Believe me, I have asked here)https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/ The USGAO also found that almost 50% of US weather stations were incorrectly recording artificially warmer temperatures due to being sited close to heat sources.https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-11-800 The Tuvalu government claim that it and it's neighbours are being washed away because of rising sea levels yet recent research shows the island land mass is growing, not shrinking.https://m.phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html You'll also have heard of but probably forgotten the leaked emails from climate scientists discussing having to make up temperature records for the Southern hemisphere because comprehensive records don't exist.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html Also don't forget YAD06 the single most influential tree in science that was used as a thermometer:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAD06 Or the machinations surrounding the epic and heart rending drama surrounding the switching of methods necessary to claim sea temperatures have risen:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/04/noaa-challenged-the-global-warming-pause-now-new-research-says-the-agency-was-right/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c9225f2f24b2 This has placed climate scientists in something of a bind of course because they now have to admit that the pause in global warming was now just another error that they'd previously endorsed, which they're now not endorsing. Bit like red wine being good for you this week, bad for you the next. Settled science and other fantasies. Claiming that 97% of an unknown figure equals something relevant is plain daft. How many climate scientists are there? Okay, where's the survey that showed that 97% of them agree that something something climate change? There is 8 million scientists worldwide according to the UN.https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/vast-set-public-cvs-reveals-world-s-most-migratory-scientists&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjsu7fdgsjcAhWDJMAKHbFNDqcQFggNMAA&usg=AOvVaw1OEpNaTDNS-I6WomNosVlh Disturbingly, no one knows how many "climate scientists" there are...... Any survey I've seen (and I've seen them all) that attempt to portray a 97% consensus rely on tiny numbers of participants. Here's the main one, from Cook and friends.http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 Less than a third of the analysed 12000 research papers endorsed AGW. Yet by the time statistics were twisted into compliance, this had turned into 97% of scientists after Barack O'Bama apparently misread the abstract.https://mobile.twitter.com/barackobama/status/335089477296988160?lang=en The ultimate government interference. #climatejustice
DickSwiveller Returns wrote: » Absolutely brilliant.
xckjoo wrote: » For those that didn't see the last threads on climate change, it usually degenerates into a small subset of posters swamping the thread by nit-picking "facts" (i.e. things they tell you you think are facts), failure to understand how modelling and statistical analysis works and links to dodgy websites that back them up in an argument nobody was having with them. Think along the lines of "they weren't 100% right about this one thing so it must a global conspiracy" type stuff. Don't bother trying to counter-argue a point because the goalposts will be moved before you even line-up your shot. Even if you do provide an explanation or proof, it's ignored or not understood.
dense wrote: » It happens here in Ireland too, where there is an agenda by certain people in the media to distort facts to suit their narrative.
dense wrote: » Well actually the US government sponsored NASA openly admits it is responsible for adding a half degree of "warming" to the US record for the 20th century, which accounts for most of the "warming" over that period. In fact nobody can say what the US "warming" was without that half a degree added. (Believe me, I have asked here)https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/
dense wrote: » The USGAO also found that almost 50% of US weather stations were incorrectly recording artificially warmer temperatures due to being sited close to heat sources.https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-11-800
dense wrote: » The Tuvalu government claim that it and it's neighbours are being washed away because of rising sea levels yet recent research shows the island land mass is growing, not shrinking.https://m.phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html
"The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) [URL="https://phys.org/tags/sea+level/"]sea level[/URL] has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion." It found factors such as wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms could offset the erosion caused by rising water levels. The Auckland team says [URL="https://phys.org/tags/climate+change/"]climate change[/URL] remains one of the major threats to low-lying island nations.
dense wrote: » You'll also have heard of but probably forgotten the leaked emails from climate scientists discussing having to make up temperature records for the Southern hemisphere because comprehensive records don't exist.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
dense wrote: » Also don't forget YAD06 the single most influential tree in science that was used as a thermometer:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAD06
dense wrote: » Or the machinations surrounding the epic and heart rending drama surrounding the switching of methods necessary to claim sea temperatures have risen:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/04/noaa-challenged-the-global-warming-pause-now-new-research-says-the-agency-was-right/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c9225f2f24b2 This has placed climate scientists in something of a bind of course because they now have to admit that the pause in global warming was now just another error that they'd previously endorsed, which they're now not endorsing. Bit like red wine being good for you this week, bad for you the next. Settled science and other fantasies.
dense wrote: » I do recall asking those who want Ireland to be a leader in the fight against climate change to explain what percentage of "climate change" has been attributed to Ireland, and what percentage of "climate change" can potentially be averted by Ireland should Ireland implement the policies they advocate. That usually gets them rolling up their banners to go on to the next cause.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Did we put a hole in the Ozone layer? I am not up to date on the latest climate change denialism, but I presume this has been attacked also?
mickdw wrote: » Well I'm a degree qualified Engineer so by definition I must have an ability to look at the facts and come to a reasonably logical conclusion even if not in my field.
DickSwiveller Returns wrote: » Here we go again. Why don't you respond to any of Dense's points?
We found a clear separation between the 45 science-based blogs and the 45 science-denier blogs. The two groups took diametrically opposite positions on the “scientific uncertainty” frame—specifically regarding the threats posed by AGW to polar bears and their Arctic-ice habitat. Scientific blogs provided convincing evidence that AGW poses a threat to both, whereas most denier blogs did not (figure 1). Science-based blogs overwhelmingly used the frame of established scientific certainties and supported arguments with the published literature affirming that warming is rapidly reducing seasonal Arctic sea-ice extent and threatening the mid- to longer-term survival of polar bears, whereas those written by deniers did not (figure 2). Science-denier blogs instead focused on the remaining uncertainties regarding the effects of AGW on Arctic ice extent, suggesting that those uncertainties cast doubt on the present and future demographic trends of polar bears.https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/4/281/4644513
Akrasia wrote: » ^^^^ Dunning Kruger effect. You know so little about climate science that you don't even know enough to know what you are wrong about. Being a 'degree qualified engineer' has absolutely no bearing on an ability to understand atmospheric science or geoscience You can 'look at the facts' all you like, it's your choice of which 'facts' to look at that is causing you to come to the wrong conclusions. If you, a 'degree qualified engineer' are so good at assessing 'the facts' can you find me a single university science department or scientific institution with any reputation worth noting who agree with your assessment of the climate science?
dense wrote: » Here's the main one, from Cook and friends.http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 Less than a third of the analysed 12000 research papers endorsed AGW. Yet by the time statistics were twisted into compliance, this had turned into 97% of scientists after Barack O'Bama apparently misread the abstract.https://mobile.twitter.com/barackobama/status/335089477296988160?lang=en The ultimate government interference. #climatejustice
examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.
32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » So not only did Dense not really understand his link, none of the commentators applauding the link understood it either. I suppose none of them actually clicked on it.
