Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Deer in the Headlights (Read 39194 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #150 –
You think this is new news?

Again, you reveal your facile nature by playing the man.

Piss weak LP. I would have thought a CFC man would have a better spine.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #151 –
Quote from: LP – on
Except there is, the assertion of some conspiracy was more fake news based around claims of the BoM changing data.

Data that is actually re-calibrated and standardised as the global organisations set new international standards for data homogenisation so that the world speaks the same units of measure relative to global standards. Like the NOAA graph a few posts ago! ;D

That BoM / ACORN conspiracy was debunked more than half a decade ago!

Too easy,

You'got all the answers - without any detail. As usual.

This as usual is pointless.


Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #152 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
Too easy,

You'got all the answers - without any detail. As usual.

This as usual is pointless.
So the truth is uncomfortable, that seems your default response!

I'll offer this link for those interested, it's a nice record and explanation of the events.
https://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #153 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
New Zealand? https://truebluenz.com/new-zealand-climate-scientist-dr-david-kear-debunks-climate-crisis/?fbclid=IwAR0KlhXK46-TKqfnAURDezGSgID-oHvAUvLwruGBsL-yscAENP243Ud4-qo
So the link opens with;
Quote from: TrueBlueNZ
The following is reproduced from a 2013 self published article by Dr David Kear. Dr Kear has impeccable credentials as a climate scientist, and to his advantage, was educated when universities schooled students in how to think, and didn’t tell them what to think. He died in 2019 aged 95.
Except Kear allegedly wasn't a climate scientist but a geologist!

He was another like Freeman Dyson (Physicist) who took issue with Human Induced Climate change in his later years, and his self-published articles have been somewhat corrupted to support radical climate denialists. Kear had a right to an opinion as any do, but like Dyson not all opinions are equal and a geologist's opinion is not equal to a genuine climate researcher's opinion. btw., Kear's alleged primary problem with the science was in the language used to describe minimums and maximum measurements, he didn't have much of an issue with most of the actual numbers or measurements presented, and he mostly debates whether warming was human induced or natural occuring, not if it was real!

Is anything you've found to support your opinion going to be accurate?
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #154 –
At the facile level, multiple issues:

1. ACORN 1 came into being when? 2008 odd? Touted as the gold standard, impeccable, best data EVA.

And "3.    What is homogenisation?
Homogenisation refers to the method of adjusting
temperature records to remove artificial biases,
such as the impact of a weather station moving
from one location to another.

Cry me a river. I'm sniffing Windy Hill off site tweaks?

2. But wait - more needed!

A new adjusted dataset, ACORN 2, was then was 'necessary" a few years later - even more 'adjustments'. The justification is little more than embarrassing - http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/BRR-032.pdf

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/12/new-record-temperatures-need-justification/

This in a country with an unquestioned record of keeping impeccable statistics dating back to the 1800s.

Suddenly the data is questionable....

3. The BoM has chosen to ignore all data pre 1910. Hmmm.

This is not conspiracy LP, this is fact.

Yep, if people want to witness the smoke and mirrors, pretty easy...
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #155 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
Climategate never happened right? All innocent grade school banter?
You mean Professor Phil Jones, the guy that Climate Change Denialist's had dragged before the UK Parliament only to see fully exonerated. A case they initiated and then labelled a conspiracy when it didn't go their way!

Then the same fringe groups tried to disparage Professor Jones' team in an an investigation chaired by the former head of Shell UK(Yes chaired by the former head of an oil company.) Which also cleared Professor Jones' staff and stated they acted with rigour, honesty and integrity.

Unlike their accusers it seems! ;D
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #156 –
Quote from: LP – on
So the link opens with;Except Kear allegedly wasn't a climate scientist but a geologist!

He was another like Freeman Dyson (Physicist) who took issue with Human Induced Climate change in his later years, and his self-published articles have been somewhat corrupted to support radical climate denialists. Kear had a right to an opinion as any do, but like Dyson not all opinions are equal and a geologist's opinion is not equal to a genuine climate researcher's opinion. btw., Kear's alleged primary problem with the science was in the language used to describe minimums and maximum measurements, he didn't have much of an issue with most of the actual numbers or measurements presented, and he mostly debates whether warming was human induced or natural occurring, not if it was real!

Is anything you've found to support your opinion going to be accurate?

So tell me LP, who is a climate scientist? What qualifications are required?

Mikey Mann (modeller), Schmidt (god knows), you?

Pray tell?

And again, you play the man. Not the ball.

Didn't you play footy?

Both Dyson and Happer are forces in science, world leading CO2 experts - and you just diss them.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #157 –
Quote from: LP – on

 
You mean Professor Phil Jones, the guy that Climate Change Denialist's had dragged before the UK Parliament only to be fully exonerated.

Then the same fringe groups tried to disparage Professor Jones' team in an an investigation chaired by the former head of Shell UK(Yes chaired by the former head of an oil company.) Which also cleared Professor Jones' staff and stated they acted with rigour, honesty and integrity.

Unlike their accusers it seems! ;D

Either you're ignorant or being disingenuous. There was no exoneration.

https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/12/legacy-of-climategate-10-years-later/

I guess if you're in, or close to the game, spin is an important skill as any.

Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #159 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
There was no exoneration.
The exoneration was official and came from the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee, the committee which conducted the enquiry for the UK Parliament.

The links you provide are not official, they are opinions! ;)
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #160 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
Both Dyson and Happer are forces in science, world leading CO2 experts - and you just diss them.
Nope that's a straight out lie.

In their fields of nuclear physics and maths Freeman Dyson and William Happer were leading scientists, but on CO2 Emissions and Climate Research they are just offering unqualified opinions like everybody else! Some of Happer's alleged claims actually fail the basic math tests discussed earlier, I've no idea why because he was more than capable to doing the math which makes some of his assertions false! Maybe they aren't really his claims at all like those earlier examples offered as statements by Kear.

For example Happer's alleged claim that the Sun is responsible for the measured Climate Change not Humans is just physically impossible and we know nothing has changed to alter that in thousands of years!

Maybe Happer is just taking the piss sometimes and winding up the conspiracy theorists to expose the nutters!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #161 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
Mikey Mann (modeller), Schmidt (god knows), you?
Why do you do this to yourself, you do know Professor Michael Mann was also exonerated, in fact his critics tried multiple avenues to get him removed and his work discredited and they lost every time!

Pretty much every conspiratorial xxxxxxxGate associated with the intial IPCC report, at least those investigated that were not so crazy as to be immediately disregarded, including ClimateGate, AmazonGate and HimalayaGate have been dismissed.

I don't mind you offering genuine counterpoints to the claims of Human Induced Climate Change, Climate Change or Global Warming in general, because debating and defending such assertions is how science works. But not when you are offering the conspiracy theories of the lunatic fringe which you seem to have nothing but credulity for, and worse use of allegedly fraudulent sources to assert fraud by genuine climate scientists!

Why do I say allegedly fraudulent sources, because nobody knows where or who corrupted the data they quote in their weird erroneous articles, they may in fact be victims of a fraud and genuinely believe it to be the case that the world is out to fool them.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #162 –
I love the way you diss the recently deceased NZ scientist as not a climate scientist yet fail to answer my question as to what (you think) is required to be so badged?

If you had bothered to read the article it details his long running role as a global leader through the whole IPCC early years.

Clearly others, much better placed than you or me, though he was very much qualified. But again, you revert to the ad hominen. Yawn.

As for Mann being exonerated, that is laughable. He even lost a defamation case in Canada (he instigated) last year after failing to produce his data.....maybe I'm naive but I recall a time when a government funded scientist was obligated to produce his/her data/stats - you know the principle of replication - see K. Popper.  ;)

And I note his rubbish 'hockey stick' charts have now been erased from IPCC reports - any credible scientist knows his stuff was (and is) very suspect. Biffra's efforts were little better.

Happer and CO2 - the bloke made CO2 lasers ffs. 200 peer reviewed papers - lauded by numerous US administrations (before Trump). Here's a few of his research papers - http://physics.princeton.edu/atomic/happer/Publications.html

Dyson? Very much an expert in the field. Was one of the leaders in CC research dating back to the early 70 at the Institute for Energy Analysis at Oak Ridge. Guess you didn't know that. I would refer you to his famous 'Paper 105'.

The simple fact that you endeavour to dismiss these guys as 'not experts' or 'not climate scientists' says everything. And is also a serious indictment on your credibility.

I'm sure you appreciate the science behind global warming is pretty straight forward, yet you reckon these blokes have no clue but a modeller does. ROFL.

Very lightweight again LP - i expected more given your certitude (but you know the game is being lost....). And feel free to drop the rhetoric at any time and converse on an actual issue related to the science.

Go Blues.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #163 –
Quote from: LP – on
The exoneration was official and came from the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee, the committee which conducted the enquiry for the UK Parliament.

The links you provide are not official, they are opinions! ;)

 Concerns about Mann’s research included:

Mann’s undisclosed use in a 1998 paper (“MBH98”) of an algorithm which mined data for hockey-stick shaped series. The algorithm was so powerful that it could produce hockey-stick shaped “reconstructions” from auto-correlated red noise. Mann’s failure to disclose the algorithm continued even in a 2004 corrigendum.
Mann’s failure to disclose adverse verification statistics in MBH98. Mann also did not archive results that would permit calculation of the adverse statistics. Climategate emails later revealed that Mann regarded this information as his “dirty laundry” and required an associate at the Climatic Research Unit (“CRU”) to withhold the information from potential critics.
Mann’s misleading claims about the “robustness” of his reconstruction to the presence/absence of tree ring chronologies, including failing to fully disclose calculations excluding questionable data from strip bark bristlecone pine trees.
Mann’s deletion of the late 20th century portion of the Briffa temperature reconstruction in Figure 2.21 in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) to conceal its sharp decline, in apparent response to concerns that showing the data would “dilute the message” and give “fodder to the skeptics.” Mann’s insistence in 2004 that “no researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction. But it was later revealed that in one figure for the cover of the 1999 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) annual report, the temperature record had not only been grafted onto the various reconstructions—and in the case of the Briffa reconstruction, had been substituted for the actual proxy
Mann’s undisclosed grafting of temperature data for “Mike’s Nature trick,” a manipulation of data which involved: (1) grafting the temperature record after 1980 onto the proxy reconstruction up to 1980; (2) “smoothing” the data; and (3) truncating the smooth back to 1980. ”

I'll stick to footy hereonin. You're in the cult. No facts, or even reality, will sway you.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #164 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
Concerns about Mann’s research included:
.
.
.
I'll stick to footy hereonin. You're in the cult. No facts, or even reality, will sway you.
Reality does sway me fiction doesn't!

Your Mann accusations are old news, dredged up and re-played ad infinitum in the remote hope it influences some general public. It's pointless raising them in this debate because the accusations have long been disproved by multiple investigations, some even chaired or sponsored by climate change skeptics. In some cases the skeptical protagonists were even forced to publish very public apologies!

Repeating false accusations won't make them suddenly become true, it's not Kansas, you're not Dorothy, no matter how often you speak or write the fantasy it will remain fake, fiction will not become reality, even News Ltd accepts that now! ;D
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"