Vote: for reinstating Climate Change back Onto the G-20 agenda !!!

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

4 hours ago, ProDee said:

When have I brought up Spencer or Christians ?

Christians aren't the only humans to have a faith, ask environmentalists.

And no, Spencer wouldn't be the only one to suggest satellite data is superior to surface temperatures.  70% of the Earth's surface is water.

You supposedly have a science background, what are your views on NASA manipulating data and previous temperature records ?

Um, maybe here:

On 24/1/2016 at 8:36 AM, ProDee said:

Nah, they're just devout Christians who recognise the idiocy of spending trillions of dollars on a non problem, especially when over 3 billion people in the world live in poverty.

 

[hardtack 10,534]

6 hours ago, ProDee said:

I agree.  Better to keep yourself a small target, eh Drone ?

Sorry PD, I don't consider myself a target as I don't have an over-inflated view of myself and my opinions... besides, I would hate to get into a demarcation dispute with you on that ground.

[Gator 17,331]

4 hours ago, Dr John Dee said:

Um, maybe here:

 

It's not even tenuous. 

Try again.

And then answer the question. 

[Jara 1,153]

That Cornwall Alliance thing. Hilarious. I got as far as the bloke - supposedly a scientist - whose main claim to fame was that he was the founder of the journal of Biblical Ethics in Medicine (I wonder if he covers stoning adulterers in his journal) 

 

on closer inspection, his name, appropriately enough, is Payne.

i'd stake my kids lives' on those jerks. Not.

[dee-luded 2,959]

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

It's not even tenuous. 

Try again.

And then answer the question. 

geez you sound like steve price to me.

[hardtack 10,534]

http://nr.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=16&articleid=56581218&source=facebook

[dee-luded 2,959]

51 minutes ago, hardtack said:

http://nr.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=16&articleid=56581218&source=facebook

maybe the t party want to wreck the environment & the world we know ???? to force GOD back to earth the fix the place in a hurry.

 

god knows the rabbott wants to see him.

 

we all do, but not to clean up the rabbotts mess.

 

appreciation is the word of any creator/god, & the way of tribal peoples the world over, giving thanks every evening that ends for their existance.

 

buy contrast,  some well educated & hungry & mean ego driven power people just want to rape the planet for their own means.... monetary gain & so called status/power... they will burn in the old teste' vernacular.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

14 hours ago, ProDee said:

When have I brought up Spencer or Christians ?

Christians aren't the only humans to have a faith, ask environmentalists.

And no, Spencer wouldn't be the only one to suggest satellite data is superior to surface temperatures.  70% of the Earth's surface is water.

You supposedly have a science background, what are your views on NASA manipulating data and previous temperature records ?

 

It’s one thing not to understand what someone else has written, any fool can do that. But you show a rare talent (sic) in not being able to understand what you’ve written.

Here’s how it works (I realise that context and consistency aren’t concepts that denialists have much familiarity with, but I’ll rely on them anyway):

(i) you chose to indulge, gratuitously, in one of your regular tropes, the one about people who accept the possibility of global warming as belonging to some sort of 'religion' ('Do you guys pray 5 times a day to this religion of yours ? ')

(ii) I noted that insofar as superstitious beliefs were concerned, plenty of denialists were well ahead ('I doubt it, but these clowns probably do: http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/');

(iii) you replied (or, rather, evaded the point) with some gibbering about the signatories to that declaration being 'devout Christians' (yep, your words) who were more concerned about the poor than climate change;

(iv) I pointed out that there was considerably more to it than that, given that one of the signatories to the evangelical declaration was the grand panjandrum of denialism, Roy Spencer, who openly admits his denialism is underwritten by his religious dogma;

(v) you replied with some confused effort (more evasion, presumably) to disown any reference you'd made to Christianity.

If you think there's anything tenuous in those connections it's no wonder you choose to follow the loony charivari of denialism.

And don’t tell me what to answer. You don’t run this thread even if you’ve recently been exhibiting delusions of petty grandeur here and elsewhere. If you want to ask a question that's so ridiculously loaded that its knees are wobbling, don't expect it to be treated with anything other than the contempt it deserves.

[daisycutter 29,610]

2 hours ago, hardtack said:

http://nr.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=16&articleid=56581218&source=facebook

oh dear, those infallible climate models again.......sorry hardtack

To test if that might be the case, Lewis ran a series of climate models in which the greenhouse effect was removed – so all that was left was natural variability. Unsurprisingly, in those models, high temperature records were less common than they are in reality. In other words, the record-breaking that we have seen cannot be explained by natural variation.

[/quote]

[Gator 17,331]

19 hours ago, Dr John Dee said:

 

It’s one thing not to understand what someone else has written, any fool can do that. But you show a rare talent (sic) in not being able to understand what you’ve written.

Here’s how it works (I realise that context and consistency aren’t concepts that denialists have much familiarity with, but I’ll rely on them anyway):

(i) you chose to indulge, gratuitously, in one of your regular tropes, the one about people who accept the possibility of global warming as belonging to some sort of 'religion' ('Do you guys pray 5 times a day to this religion of yours ? ')

(ii) I noted that insofar as superstitious beliefs were concerned, plenty of denialists were well ahead ('I doubt it, but these clowns probably do: http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/');

(iii) you replied (or, rather, evaded the point) with some gibbering about the signatories to that declaration being 'devout Christians' (yep, your words) who were more concerned about the poor than climate change;

(iv) I pointed out that there was considerably more to it than that, given that one of the signatories to the evangelical declaration was the grand panjandrum of denialism, Roy Spencer, who openly admits his denialism is underwritten by his religious dogma;

(v) you replied with some confused effort (more evasion, presumably) to disown any reference you'd made to Christianity.

If you think there's anything tenuous in those connections it's no wonder you choose to follow the loony charivari of denialism.

And don’t tell me what to answer. You don’t run this thread even if you’ve recently been exhibiting delusions of petty grandeur here and elsewhere. If you want to ask a question that's so ridiculously loaded that its knees are wobbling, don't expect it to be treated with anything other than the contempt it deserves.

Seemingly, you know more about this Christian Group than me.  I don't have the inclination to scour their site for every morsel of information that outlines their views on GW and how it intertwines with their faith.  However, you assert their views are based on "superstition".  Fact or fiction ?  Or do you think all faiths fall into that category ?  But you also say "these clowns probably do".  What do you mean "probably" ?  If you're right be more specific and highlight why you consider their views are based on "superstition". 

You also talk of "loony charivari of denialism".  I must say it's a nice colourful turn of phrase.  Are you suggesting the science is "settled" ?  

As far for the other question ...  Why do you consider it "loaded" ?  It's a very important question that needs to be addressed.  You either agree that data sets have been manipulated by NASA and NOAA, or you don't.  And if you do, what's their motivation ?  If you don't, well, there's no need to answer that last little bit...

Then again, maybe you just don't know and are open to the idea that it's a possibility, which would also be quite reasonable.  

Edited January 27, 2016 by ProDee
Flow

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

On 25/1/2016 at 9:11 AM, ProDee said:

...

And no, Spencer wouldn't be the only one to suggest satellite data is superior to surface temperatures.  70% of the Earth's surface is water.

You supposedly have a science background, what are your views on NASA manipulating data and previous temperature records ?

That the oceans make up 70% of the earth’s surface … so there are some facts floating around, but what are we to make of this one? Not, I suspect, what Jo Nova and the rattlers of saucepan lids might want us to make.

(i) the 70% certainly doesn’t mean that there are no measurements of surface air temperatures across the oceans. There are, and there are plenty of them … but their relevance isn’t in absolute numbers anyway, rather it’s in the comparative data they provide (if they’re accurately measuring the same thing at the same place across time then there’s sufficient consistency and thus reliability in what they tell us);

(ii) but all that water in all those oceans also produces, through evaporation, what are known in the trade as clouds. Clouds play havoc with satellite measurements, which have to be adjusted to provide their version of consistency across time;

to which we can add:

(iii) those satellite measurements are not, as everyone knows, or ought to know, of temperature at all but of radiation and need to be transformed via complex calculations into temperatures; not all calculations are equal either, different meteorological groups calculate different things;

(iv) there are significant other impediments to deriving straightforward, unmediated temperature figures, one of which is that satellites do not record information on a daily basis; their full coverage of target sites is produce over a 3 to 4 day cycle and so any continuous picture of temperatures at a particular time at each site is also the product (derivation) of processes of calculation;

(v) satellite measurements are also subject to drift (the time at which a satellite passes over a designated spot changing with the decay in and other influences on its orbit) so temperatures derived from those measurements have to be adjusted;

(vi) satellites, as everyone knows or ought to, do not record, or allow for transformation into measurements, data that has anything to do with what weather stations, buoys and any other forms of collecting terrestrial information record. They record data that provides information about changes in the lower and middle troposphere … different regions, the figures for which have to be averaged (adjusted) to provide an overall picture of temperature activity in the troposphere;

(vii) satellite measurements are not all of a piece. Any reference to satellite data is a reference to the result of a reconciliation (adjustment) different kinds of information collected by different kinds of instruments.

We also know that establishing the accuracy of satellite data has been a long and painful process, and Roy Spencer and his mate John Christy (at the University of Alabama, Huntington or UAH) provided troposphere temperature figures for quite some which were clearly problematic and subsequently invalidated. They were problematic not just because they were out of step with terrestrial figures in what they indicated about warming (cue the conspiracy theorists) but also with existing data from the troposphere (radiosonde instruments, i.e.) weather balloons. Over time, however, the UAH group – responding to the criticisms of its figures – has eliminated the systematic errors that dogged its calculations and the warming trend those figures now reveal is consistent with trends identified from all the other sources. Or perhaps they’ve only eliminated some of the errors (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming)

Whatever the case, the alignment of trends is the important issue even if Spencer, who seems no longer to be associated with UAH, is still producing dodgy interpretations of those trends from the satellite record … although he’s hardly alone in that – as the inestimable Jo Nova demonstrates – as the denialists cling desperately to 1998.

If all or even a few of those operations in all or even a few of those interventions were practised to the detriment of what the denialist regard as their case against global warming (or if that history of error pointed to something similar), we’d no doubt have the usual hysterical language being dug out of the Standard Denialist Phrasebook (3^rd Edition) and thrown at every satellite-derived figure that they could find … ‘manipulation’ is, of course, a favourite as you know, but there’s ‘fraud’ (they particularly like ‘criminal fraud’), ‘forgery’, ‘deception’ and so on. 

But all that NASA or a Bureau of Meteorology has to do is recognise that data from a particular weather station has become inconsistent with its historical record because of changes in environmental circumstances or conditions, and seek to apply an adjustment to the figures from that station, and the Phrasebook is almost torn to shreds in the stampede of the denialist cacophony to calumniate the agency involved … and to extrapolate from a handful of examples, or even one or two, to a claim that the accumulated figures from all terrestrial stations in a country or even across the globe are somehow consequentially invalid (an operation that isn’t anything other than a grotesque and hyperbolic parody of the ‘manipulating’ of evidence they’re purporting to condemn).

 

So what I think about NASA’s supposed ‘manipulation’ has very little to do with science or with empirical fact, but it has a lot to do with discourse, because all that the denialists really have to go on is shoddy discursive manoeuvres, although these are, of course, inevitably based on even shoddier, cherry-picked and distorted bits of information.

 

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

On 26/1/2016 at 8:21 AM, ProDee said:

Seemingly, you know more about this Christian Group than me.  I don't have the inclination to scour their site for every morsel of information that outlines their views on GW and how it intertwines with their faith.  However, you assert their views are based on "superstition".  Fact or fiction ?  Or do you think all faiths fall into that category ?  But you also say "these clowns probably do".  What do you mean "probably" ?  If you're right be more specific and highlight why you consider their views are based on "superstition".

Perhaps you might like to apply the same standards of validation to your claims about the weather 'drones' and their purported religious practices.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

17 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

 

 

I love how you think Jo Nova is for rattlers of tin pans but reference a left wing rag like the guardian to make your point. 

I also like your bit about oceans making up 70% of the surface area. You realise that the satellite data cover upwards of 98% of the atmosphere?

Are you one of those that think the missing heat / energy is hiding in the deap oceans (where it can't be measured) or have you got some other great explanation for the complete failing of climate science predictions?

 

 

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

41 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I love how you think Jo Nova is for rattlers of tin pans but reference a left wing rag like the guardian to make your point. 

I also like your bit about oceans making up 70% of the surface area. You realise that the satellite data cover upwards of 98% of the atmosphere?

Are you one of those that think the missing heat / energy is hiding in the deap oceans (where it can't be measured) or have you got some other great explanation for the complete failing of climate science predictions?

 

 

The Guardian is a respected mainstream British newspaper, not a sinkhole for bloviators and political hacks. It still practises what's known as journalism. I don't expect you to know what that means but if  you were even half careful enough to read the article you'd see that it's about a study published in an entirely reputable scientific journal. It's only people incapable of anything other than brainless servility to ideology who use terms like 'left wing rag'.

And you really need to abandon your efforts at ridicule. They're about as ept as your spelling and your understanding  ... nor was it my 'bit' about the 70%, it was ProDee's, which I was replying to. Congratulations on another expert demonstration of your ignorance and your inability to comprehend anything about the language you supposedly speak.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

3 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

The Guardian is a respected mainstream British newspaper, not a sinkhole for bloviators and political hacks. It still practises what's known as journalism. I don't expect you to know what that means but if  you were even half careful enough to read the article you'd see that it's about a study published in an entirely reputable scientific journal. It's only people incapable of anything other than brainless servility to ideology who use terms like 'left wing rag'.

And you really need to abandon your efforts at ridicule. They're about as ept as your spelling and your understanding  ... nor was it my 'bit' about the 70%, it was ProDee's, which I was replying to. Congratulations on another expert demonstration of your ignorance and your inability to comprehend anything about the language you supposedly speak.

Hahaha so is the Northern Territory News.

You haven't answered the question about all the missing heat / energy? Or would you prefer to reference the guardian (left wing rag), who reference someone else. Why not just reference the original source?

Apologies about the 70% - I didn't realise you were replying to another post. 

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

There's a lot of things you don't realise but trying to itemise them might take all night. Here's a few:

Trying to compare the Guardian with the NT News just demonstrates why there's no point dealing with anything you say.

And then you go and compound the idiocy with some attempted point about original sources. If you have access to online academic journals (given your Dick and Jane level reading skills I have some doubts about that), go and find it for yourself. Very few members of Demonland do. We trade in publicly accessible documents here.

I'm under no obligation to answer anybody's questions, particularly (as I've already said to ProDee) questions that are so prejudicially phrased (I'd add bombastically and mindlessly to that description in your case if I could be bothered) that they've already answered themselves, no matter what nonsense that answer implies.

Your last two posts are a perfect example of why I mentioned to ProDee in an earlier post that I had no intention of posting anything in this or other threads about the science of climate change. I broke my own rule, briefly, to see what might happen and it has, with unerring precision. Nothing is ever likely to be discussed (a difficult word, look it up) by the clockwork denialists here; it's all just cant and obfuscation and evasion and the endless repetition of denialist pieties, errors and misinterpretations. As you've amply demonstrated, when you can't understand anything about the point someone might be making, don't bother with it, just throw in some question or other that's got nothing to do with a topic and see if the awkward issue can go away.

Oh, and in any case, I was talking to ProDee, not you. You don't get to stick your nose into conversations demanding answers to questions that have nothing to do with the topic – especially employing some attempted feint that indicates that you haven't even had the courtesy to read a post properly – without risking having it cut off. Go away.

 

[dee-luded 2,959]

On 28/1/2016 at 1:47 PM, Wrecker45 said:

I love how you think Jo Nova is for rattlers of tin pans but reference a left wing rag like the guardian to make your point. 

I also like your bit about oceans making up 70% of the surface area. You realise that the satellite data cover upwards of 98% of the atmosphere?

Are you one of those that think the missing heat / energy is hiding in the deap oceans (where it can't be measured) or have you got some other great explanation for the complete failing of climate science predictions?

 

 

love it how you put yourself ito a right wing corner by always referring to politics,  instead of the climate & the scientists themselves.  you seem to be just playing the money or the climate box game all the time

("wrecka"),  "can we afford a healthy climate, hell know" !

Edited January 29, 2016 by dee-luded

[Gator 17,331]

21 hours ago, Dr John Dee said:

That the oceans make up 70% of the earth’s surface … so there are some facts floating around, but what are we to make of this one? Not, I suspect, what Jo Nova and the rattlers of saucepan lids might want us to make.

(i) the 70% certainly doesn’t mean that there are no measurements of surface air temperatures across the oceans. There are, and there are plenty of them … but their relevance isn’t in absolute numbers anyway, rather it’s in the comparative data they provide (if they’re accurately measuring the same thing at the same place across time then there’s sufficient consistency and thus reliability in what they tell us);

(ii) but all that water in all those oceans also produces, through evaporation, what are known in the trade as clouds. Clouds play havoc with satellite measurements, which have to be adjusted to provide their version of consistency across time;

to which we can add:

(iii) those satellite measurements are not, as everyone knows, or ought to know, of temperature at all but of radiation and need to be transformed via complex calculations into temperatures; not all calculations are equal either, different meteorological groups calculate different things;

(iv) there are significant other impediments to deriving straightforward, unmediated temperature figures, one of which is that satellites do not record information on a daily basis; their full coverage of target sites is produce over a 3 to 4 day cycle and so any continuous picture of temperatures at a particular time at each site is also the product (derivation) of processes of calculation;

(v) satellite measurements are also subject to drift (the time at which a satellite passes over a designated spot changing with the decay in and other influences on its orbit) so temperatures derived from those measurements have to be adjusted;

(vi) satellites, as everyone knows or ought to, do not record, or allow for transformation into measurements, data that has anything to do with what weather stations, buoys and any other forms of collecting terrestrial information record. They record data that provides information about changes in the lower and middle troposphere … different regions, the figures for which have to be averaged (adjusted) to provide an overall picture of temperature activity in the troposphere;

(vii) satellite measurements are not all of a piece. Any reference to satellite data is a reference to the result of a reconciliation (adjustment) different kinds of information collected by different kinds of instruments.

We also know that establishing the accuracy of satellite data has been a long and painful process, and Roy Spencer and his mate John Christy (at the University of Alabama, Huntington or UAH) provided troposphere temperature figures for quite some which were clearly problematic and subsequently invalidated. They were problematic not just because they were out of step with terrestrial figures in what they indicated about warming (cue the conspiracy theorists) but also with existing data from the troposphere (radiosonde instruments, i.e.) weather balloons. Over time, however, the UAH group – responding to the criticisms of its figures – has eliminated the systematic errors that dogged its calculations and the warming trend those figures now reveal is consistent with trends identified from all the other sources. Or perhaps they’ve only eliminated some of the errors (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming)

Whatever the case, the alignment of trends is the important issue even if Spencer, who seems no longer to be associated with UAH, is still producing dodgy interpretations of those trends from the satellite record … although he’s hardly alone in that – as the inestimable Jo Nova demonstrates – as the denialists cling desperately to 1998.

If all or even a few of those operations in all or even a few of those interventions were practised to the detriment of what the denialist regard as their case against global warming (or if that history of error pointed to something similar), we’d no doubt have the usual hysterical language being dug out of the Standard Denialist Phrasebook (3^rd Edition) and thrown at every satellite-derived figure that they could find … ‘manipulation’ is, of course, a favourite as you know, but there’s ‘fraud’ (they particularly like ‘criminal fraud’), ‘forgery’, ‘deception’ and so on. 

But all that NASA or a Bureau of Meteorology has to do is recognise that data from a particular weather station has become inconsistent with its historical record because of changes in environmental circumstances or conditions, and seek to apply an adjustment to the figures from that station, and the Phrasebook is almost torn to shreds in the stampede of the denialist cacophony to calumniate the agency involved … and to extrapolate from a handful of examples, or even one or two, to a claim that the accumulated figures from all terrestrial stations in a country or even across the globe are somehow consequentially invalid (an operation that isn’t anything other than a grotesque and hyperbolic parody of the ‘manipulating’ of evidence they’re purporting to condemn).

 

So what I think about NASA’s supposed ‘manipulation’ has very little to do with science or with empirical fact, but it has a lot to do with discourse, because all that the denialists really have to go on is shoddy discursive manoeuvres, although these are, of course, inevitably based on even shoddier, cherry-picked and distorted bits of information.

 

Thanks for all this.

It's a bit to digest, so I'm going to have a closer look over the weekend.

[Gator 17,331]

On 1/28/2016 at 1:22 PM, Dr John Dee said:

That the oceans make up 70% of the earth’s surface … so there are some facts floating around, but what are we to make of this one? Not, I suspect, what Jo Nova and the rattlers of saucepan lids might want us to make.

(i) the 70% certainly doesn’t mean that there are no measurements of surface air temperatures across the oceans. There are, and there are plenty of them … but their relevance isn’t in absolute numbers anyway, rather it’s in the comparative data they provide (if they’re accurately measuring the same thing at the same place across time then there’s sufficient consistency and thus reliability in what they tell us);

(ii) but all that water in all those oceans also produces, through evaporation, what are known in the trade as clouds. Clouds play havoc with satellite measurements, which have to be adjusted to provide their version of consistency across time;

to which we can add:

(iii) those satellite measurements are not, as everyone knows, or ought to know, of temperature at all but of radiation and need to be transformed via complex calculations into temperatures; not all calculations are equal either, different meteorological groups calculate different things;

(iv) there are significant other impediments to deriving straightforward, unmediated temperature figures, one of which is that satellites do not record information on a daily basis; their full coverage of target sites is produce over a 3 to 4 day cycle and so any continuous picture of temperatures at a particular time at each site is also the product (derivation) of processes of calculation;

(v) satellite measurements are also subject to drift (the time at which a satellite passes over a designated spot changing with the decay in and other influences on its orbit) so temperatures derived from those measurements have to be adjusted;

(vi) satellites, as everyone knows or ought to, do not record, or allow for transformation into measurements, data that has anything to do with what weather stations, buoys and any other forms of collecting terrestrial information record. They record data that provides information about changes in the lower and middle troposphere … different regions, the figures for which have to be averaged (adjusted) to provide an overall picture of temperature activity in the troposphere;

(vii) satellite measurements are not all of a piece. Any reference to satellite data is a reference to the result of a reconciliation (adjustment) different kinds of information collected by different kinds of instruments.

We also know that establishing the accuracy of satellite data has been a long and painful process, and Roy Spencer and his mate John Christy (at the University of Alabama, Huntington or UAH) provided troposphere temperature figures for quite some which were clearly problematic and subsequently invalidated. They were problematic not just because they were out of step with terrestrial figures in what they indicated about warming (cue the conspiracy theorists) but also with existing data from the troposphere (radiosonde instruments, i.e.) weather balloons. Over time, however, the UAH group – responding to the criticisms of its figures – has eliminated the systematic errors that dogged its calculations and the warming trend those figures now reveal is consistent with trends identified from all the other sources. Or perhaps they’ve only eliminated some of the errors (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming)

Whatever the case, the alignment of trends is the important issue even if Spencer, who seems no longer to be associated with UAH, is still producing dodgy interpretations of those trends from the satellite record … although he’s hardly alone in that – as the inestimable Jo Nova demonstrates – as the denialists cling desperately to 1998.

If all or even a few of those operations in all or even a few of those interventions were practised to the detriment of what the denialist regard as their case against global warming (or if that history of error pointed to something similar), we’d no doubt have the usual hysterical language being dug out of the Standard Denialist Phrasebook (3^rd Edition) and thrown at every satellite-derived figure that they could find … ‘manipulation’ is, of course, a favourite as you know, but there’s ‘fraud’ (they particularly like ‘criminal fraud’), ‘forgery’, ‘deception’ and so on. 

But all that NASA or a Bureau of Meteorology has to do is recognise that data from a particular weather station has become inconsistent with its historical record because of changes in environmental circumstances or conditions, and seek to apply an adjustment to the figures from that station, and the Phrasebook is almost torn to shreds in the stampede of the denialist cacophony to calumniate the agency involved … and to extrapolate from a handful of examples, or even one or two, to a claim that the accumulated figures from all terrestrial stations in a country or even across the globe are somehow consequentially invalid (an operation that isn’t anything other than a grotesque and hyperbolic parody of the ‘manipulating’ of evidence they’re purporting to condemn).

 

So what I think about NASA’s supposed ‘manipulation’ has very little to do with science or with empirical fact, but it has a lot to do with discourse, because all that the denialists really have to go on is shoddy discursive manoeuvres, although these are, of course, inevitably based on even shoddier, cherry-picked and distorted bits of information.

 

I'd never spent much time researching the fors and against of satellite v surface temperature data, because it hasn't interested me much.  The planet is always heating or cooling and after coming out of the little ice age some warming is to be expected.  And I'm in the camp that some warming is better than no warming.

I'm also dubious that a trace element that is one half of one tenth of 1% of the Earth's total atmosphere could be such a driver of temperature.  And man accounts for about 3-4% of CO2 produced.  CO2 has been far more abundant in periods when it's been colder than today.

Trillions of dollars spent now on GW doesn't make much sense to me when future generations are going to have technology that makes us look like cavemen.  And the UN makes it clear that the climate change agenda really isn't about climate anyway.

Back to your excellent post.  It seems you're right about this argument.  Goddard posted this recent blog:

 https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/the-satellite-deniers/

In it he points out a problem:

The 1995 IPCC report, authored by none other than NOAA’s own Tom Karl, showed that satellite temperatures matched NOAA balloon data, and that neither showed any warming since 1979.

That said, he doesn't counter or reference the types of claims you've made above.

The bottom line for me, Doctor, is that models have nearly always been wrong for 40 years and always over predict temperature rises.  And it's not hard to realise why they're wrong when the climate is influenced by 100's of factors.  And for me, the driver of climate is the Sun not CO2.  

Edited January 31, 2016 by ProDee

[Jara 1,153]

Pro

 

if the BOM tells me there's a storm coming I take an umbrella.  

 

If they tell me it's going to be a Code Red day, I evacuate my family and get ready to jump into a fire truck

 

they are virtually always right.

 

if they tell me it's been the hottest year on record, I tend to believe them.  

 

I suppose if if I were to scrape around every fringe loser or lunatic publication I could find somebody who disagrees with them, but why would I bother? Why would the BOM be lying to me? (I know a couple of scientists working in the area - they're as straight as the day is long)

 

the loonies, on the other hand, I am naturally more suspicious of. My suspicion, ultimately, is that they are somehow in the pay of those with a vested interest in maintaining our dependence upon fossil fuels ( eg Saudi Arabia) - or else they are so stuck in their ways, or so tight-arsed,  they can't manage the minor changes to our lifestyle needed to combat climate change. Or else they are just right-wing, anti-government Tea-party paranoids.

[Gator 17,331]

45 minutes ago, Jara said:

Pro

 

if the BOM tells me there's a storm coming I take an umbrella.  

 

If they tell me it's going to be a Code Red day, I evacuate my family and get ready to jump into a fire truck

 

they are virtually always right.

 

if they tell me it's been the hottest year on record, I tend to believe them.  

 

I suppose if if I were to scrape around every fringe loser or lunatic publication I could find somebody who disagrees with them, but why would I bother? Why would the BOM be lying to me? (I know a couple of scientists working in the area - they're as straight as the day is long)

 

the loonies, on the other hand, I am naturally more suspicious of. My suspicion, ultimately, is that they are somehow in the pay of those with a vested interest in maintaining our dependence upon fossil fuels ( eg Saudi Arabia) - or else they are so stuck in their ways, or so tight-arsed,  they can't manage the minor changes to our lifestyle needed to combat climate change. Or else they are just right-wing, anti-government Tea-party paranoids.

Your post is utterly irrelevant.  Nor has it got anything to do with GW.

[Earl Hood 6,086]

I read today there are still some 70 fires raging in Tasmania, trees that were 1500 years old have been burnt, large parts of the World Heritage Area have been destroyed. High altitude forests that have never experienced fire are now dead. People fought to keep the loggers and dam builders out but now climate change is doing its nasty work. Apparently, according to some, it hasn't warmed at all since 1998 but gee it is a lot flicking drier and we are losing our forests at a massive rate. But let's not do anything rash lest we upset the economy. 

Edited January 31, 2016 by Earl Hood

[Gator 17,331]

1 hour ago, Earl Hood said:

I read today there are still some 70 fires raging in Tasmania, trees that were 1500 years old have been burnt, large parts of the World Heritage Area have been destroyed. High altitude forests that have never experienced fire are now dead. People fought to keep the loggers and dam builders out but now climate change is doing its nasty work. Apparently, according to some, it hasn't warmed at all since 1998 but gee it is a lot flicking drier and we are losing our forests at a massive rate. But let's not do anything rash lest we upset the economy. 

You're a dope, Earl.  All 50 states in America were in snow recently, yet you pick out fires in a country that has always had fires.

There's a reason that anyone with half a brain from both sides of the debate don't sight seasonally predicted extreme weather conditions.

Earth to Earl - the planet will always warm and cool, always has and always will.

[Gator 17,331]

http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/new-study-sun-not-co2-causes-climate-change/

Perhaps the good Doctor may like to read this paper when he has time and give a view.  No disrespect, but I don't need Earl or Jara, who may talk about hot days in January, proffering an opinion.

It starts:

A new, peer-reviewed professional paper shows our sun, not our carbon dioxide, causes climate change. It also shows atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are an insignificant player, and possibly a non-player, in climate change.

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

Wow! Climate change denialists, right here on demonland! 'Tis like finding a T-rex in the backyard.