The Global Warming Fraud
(01-05-2020, 04:55 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(01-02-2020, 08:35 PM)Zedta Wrote: You really are dodging the larger question in my original dare: "you've been avoiding any serious input of knowledge and not answering basic questions of substance" is what I wrote. Your answer is to go after one video and its author. What about all the other articles and authors I've posted?

YOU brought up the Davidson video, not me.
This response is so childish it does not rate an answer.

Stanis Wrote:I think YOU are missing the big picture, which is that your "hundreds of posts" here are meaningless. You haven't done anything to advance the field of climate science. 

You didn't point out any error in data or any error in analysis. You asserted, without support: "The data used by the majority of academia is flawed, in many respects, as applied to the Climate Change/Warming discussion."

I am not here to advance the field of climate science and never have asserted so. I am merely a reporter who cites other's work to support the premise of this thread. Please get that through your head.

As to pointing out error: I cited one such article and there are others, but it is not my place to go ferret them out for you, but of course, you won't do that on your own and make comment on that data, but revert to your common modus operandi of attacking me. That is the crevice that those with weak arguments hide in: Ad Hominid attacks.



Stanis, I have come to the conclusion that you yourself have no solid information to offer but rebuttal without data, except from sources of rather questionable repute. These 'sources' are from institutions with a dog in this 'fraud' race and they will get that dog to win at any cost, so long as the sponsors of the dog keep giving them the big bucks to keep their university labs and cushy chairs well supplied with CASH. That fact is what made Dr. Lindzen resign and the typical Ad Hominid responses from his former colleagues is not surprising. He went where there were people of honor to continue his work. MIT has been lost long ago.

Its all a fraud and that is and always has been the basis of this whole thread, in case you missed that.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis
Reply
(01-05-2020, 05:51 PM)Zedta Wrote: Stanis, I have come to the conclusion that you yourself have no solid information to offer but rebuttal without data, except from sources of rather questionable repute. These 'sources' are from institutions with a dog in this 'fraud' race and they will get that dog to win at any cost, so long as the sponsors of the dog keep giving them the big bucks to keep their university labs and cushy chairs well supplied with CASH. That fact is what made Dr. Lindzen resign and the typical Ad Hominid responses from his former colleagues is not surprising. He went where there were people of honor to continue his work. MIT has been lost long ago.

Its all a fraud and that is and always has been the basis of this whole thread, in case you missed that.

I agree there is fraud in global warming. The frauds are people like Davidson.

It's like the moon landing deniers who say you can't trust anything from NASA because they faked the moon landings and can't be trusted. That's circular reasoning, fallacious, and indicative of psuedoscience nonsense. Moon landing deniers dismiss an entire body of knowledge without study, or vetting of their ideas with experts, or anything that might check their errors. That's hardly a concern for truth..

Not unlike the moon landing deniers, you reject all the information from actual experts because they ALLEGEDLY have a "dog" in the race. And you dare accuse ME of ad hominem? But you haven't put in the years of effort needed to understand the field. And yet people like Davidson are completely on the up and up, fully and completely honest, right? There is not a chance they could be con men selling snake oil? Yeah, right.

I agree there is fraud in global warming. It's mostly with the "skeptics" and "deniers".
Reply
(01-05-2020, 10:44 PM)Stanis Wrote: And you dare accuse ME of ad hominem? But you haven't put in the years of effort needed to understand the field. And yet people like Davidson are completely on the up and up, fully and completely honest, right? There is not a chance they could be con men selling snake oil? Yeah, right.

I agree there is fraud in global warming. It's mostly with the "skeptics" and "deniers".
At last, some actual dialog.

First; you were the one from the get-go that attacked me for posting what I did, rather than going after what I was posting. That by definition is an ad hominem type projection.

Second, I posted about Davidson once and only as an example of his viewpoint. I never acted as his acolyte. I really don't know anything about him, only that I've seen a couple of his videos and they are intriguing. That's all, jury is still out.

Third, I do agree there is a Climate Change underway, but I am not in agreement that man has that much of an effect as many are saying. I tend to hold to the position that there are way too many other variables at play than just human activity to account for the changes, although, the amount of more recent climate engineering is quite alarming in my view on many levels, including environmental effects of the aluminum and borate salts used in the chemtrails. There could be lots of deforestation and increased volatility in the forest fires as a result of these chemicals.

Fourth:

Stanis Wrote:But you haven't put in the years of effort needed to understand the field.

How do you know this? You know nothing or very little about me, however, what I know may have some bearing on what I post about. But it is that data posted that is the rub, not my background. Additionally, I know nothing or little about your bona fides on the subject and I don't think that matters either, but you keep bringing up what my requirements should be in order to simply report on an issue. You have referred to your "field" at least on one occasion, but without alluding to which field that may be. So, since you brought it up, what is your field?

Finally, I have been a hobbyist weather observer for at least 60 years. I studied weather in flight school and learned to read weather reports and maps over the years. In that time I have seen significant changes in what I am observing. As a hobbyist, I have done research on the technologies of weather modification. While serving with the USAF, I read about the wing of F4s that were used to modify the weather over Viet Nam to control the monsoon rains for tactical advantage. While working for Lockheed Aircraft I also leaned about weather effects on aircraft. I have spent many hours at solar observatories, at Griffith Observatory in LA and many visits to Sunspot in Cloudcroft, NM. I have spent a lot of time talking with the solar physicists and learning about the sun over many years.

I have no degrees in weather studies, just practical experience in observation and a rather good memory and ability to see trends and changes. I see the changes and see a bunch of possible causes, but CO2 just isn't so very logical. Water Vapor is HUGLY more active a player and it doesn't seem effected very much by mere scant amounts of change in CO2 over time.

Sorry, but I believe in history and history tells me that there were climate alarmists in the 70s talking about a coming Ice Age. Then Ted Turner and the Club of Rome came together and after seeing the lackadaisical response of an Ice Age, hit upon CO2 and Warming. Money talks and they poured it on and bought out a whole lot of academia, even getting the fudging of data to push their agenda, to the point of getting The United Nations into the act as a way of milking money, through 'Carbon Taxes', out of wealthy countries and letting others pollute their hearts out.

The only man made part of this issue is that it is/was a man made contrivance, not a scientific truth.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis
Reply
Can't be a hoax. We were told last night by Russel Crowe, via Jennifer Aniston, that climate change is REAL!

Who are we to question Crowe/Aniston on such issues? ???

[-] The following 2 users Like Bonaventure's post:
  • antiquarian, Zedta
Reply
(01-06-2020, 05:31 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: Can't be a hoax.  We were told last night by Russel Crowe, via Jennifer Aniston, that climate change is REAL!

Who are we to question Crowe/Aniston on such issues? ???
Exactly. Listen to the EXPERTS!!!
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis
Reply
Ricky Jervais had a few words for those 'experts'.

UK Comedian Scathingly Calls out Hypocrisy of ‘Woke’ Hollywood Elites at Golden Globe Awards

Good on him! 'Joking' or not, it needed to be said!

From LifeSiteNews


Ricky Gervais told the Hollywood celebs they're in 'no position to lecture the public about anything.'

January 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – British comedian Ricky Gervais, best known for the UK TV series The Office, has grabbed media headlines and “gone viral” online after telling Hollywood celebrities gathered for the Golden Globe awards on Sunday evening that they were “in no position to lecture the public about anything” in a seven-minute speech that has been described as a skewering of “woke” culture.[i] [/i]


[Image: Screenshot_2020-01-06%2BUK%2Bcomedian%2B...awards.png]
Such award ceremonies have become infamous in recent years for celebrities using the events to promote their views on issues such as abortion, climate change, and immigration.

Gervais, who began his speech by saying that his comments were “just jokes”, appeared to be serious as he urged the celebrities not to make any political speeches when collecting awards. At one point, he tore stripes off of Apple for claiming to be “woke” while being a “company who runs sweatshops in China.”

You say you're “woke”, but the companies you work for are unbelievable. Apple, Amazon, Disney - If ISIS started a streaming service you'd call your agent wouldn't you?

So if you do win an award tonight don't use it as a platform to make a political speech. You're in no position to lecture the public about anything.

You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.

So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent and your god and then f**k off.

Throughout his opening speech, Gervais made a host of controversial and a number of extremely vulgar jokes that drew mixed responses from the celebrity audience.

At one point in his speech, Gervais referred to the audience generally as “all you perverts” and said that the one thing that all TV and film executives had in common was being “terrified of Ronan Farrow”, the journalist known for helping to uncover sexual abuse allegations against former Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein.

Later in the show, Gervais appeared to make a broad attack on former colleagues of Weinstein when introducing a clip for the film Birdbox, describing it as “a movie where people survive by acting like they don't see a thing. Sort of like working for Harvey Weinstein”.

In another provocative moment, when talking about a character in a popular Netflix show, Gervais said “he obviously didn’t kill himself. Just like Jeffrey Epstein”. As the audience responded with a mixture of laughs, gasps and boos, Gervais continued “Shut up. I know he's your friend, but I don't care”.

Prior to the event, Gervais told the Spectator magazine of his intention to challenge the audience, saying “It's a room full of the biggest virtue-signalers and hypocrites in the world, so I've got to go after that”.

Commenting on what he described as the “almost universal acclaim” that Gervais’ speech received on Twitter, Piers Morgan wrote in the Mail Online “[t]he reason his verbal assault resonated so powerfully is because it came just when many people, including me, feared the world had gone completely nuts – shamed, dragged and cancelled into supine submission by a staggeringly intolerant radical liberal mob intent on sucking every ounce of freedom and joy out of life”.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • antiquarian, Zedta
Reply
Ya I saw the whole bit on YouTube from the broadcast. How right on target can you get, but then as he said, it was his last time hosting. Why not?
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis
[-] The following 1 user Likes Zedta's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
This is encouraging. Some of the scientists investigating 'Climate Change' are seeing some error in how this is analyzed. They have come up with a better model maker it would seem. It will be interesting to see how this all pans out when they get into applying it to millennia past and up to know and how man's effects can be an influence.

Waiting...


Article Wrote:Link to Original Article
Climate signals detected in global weather
by Staff Writers
Zurich, Switzerland (SPX) Jan 07, 2020

[Image: north-american-surface-temperatures-dec-26-2017-hg.jpg]
North American surface temperatures for Dec. 26, 2017-Jan. 2, 2018: even if it is extremely cold in a region, this does not mean that climate change has stopped.
In October this year, weather researchers in Utah measured the lowest temperature ever recorded in the month of October in the US (excluding Alaska): -37.1C. The previous low-temperature record for October was -35C, and people wondered what had happened to climate change.

Until now, climate researchers have responded that climate is not the same thing as weather. Climate is what we expect in the long term, whereas weather is what we get in the short term - and since local weather conditions are highly variable, it can be very cold in one location for a short time despite long-term global warming. In short, the variability of local weather masks long-term trends in global climate.


A paradigm shift

Now, however, a group led by ETH professor Reto Knutti has conducted a new analysis of temperature measurements and models. The scientists concluded that the weather-is-not-climate paradigm is no longer applicable in that form.

According to the researchers, the climate signal - that is, the long-term warming trend - can actually be discerned in daily weather data, such as surface air temperature and humidity, provided that global spatial patterns are taken into account.

In plain English, this means that - despite global warming - there may well be a record low temperature in October in the US. If it is simultaneously warmer than average in other regions, however, this deviation is almost completely eliminated. "Uncovering the climate change signal in daily weather conditions calls for a global perspective, not a regional one," says Sebastian Sippel, a postdoc working in Knutti's research group and lead author of a study recently published in Nature Climate Change.


Statistical learning techniques extract climate change signature

In order to detect the climate signal in daily weather records, Sippel and his colleagues used statistical learning techniques to combine simulations with climate models and data from measuring stations.

Statistical learning techniques can extract a "fingerprint" of climate change from the combination of temperatures of various regions and the ratio of expected warming and variability. By systematically evaluating the model simulations, they can identify the climate fingerprint in the global measurement data on any single day since spring 2012.
A comparison of the variability of local and global daily mean temperatures shows why the global perspective is important. Whereas locally measured daily mean temperatures can fluctuate widely (even after the seasonal cycle is removed), global daily mean values show a very narrow range.

If the distribution of global daily mean values from 1951 to 1980 are then compared with those from 2009 to 2018, the two distributions (bell curves) barely overlap. The climate signal is thus prominent in the global values but obscured in the local values, since the distribution of daily mean values overlaps quite considerably in the two periods.


Application to the hydrological cycle

The findings could have broad implications for climate science. "Weather at the global level carries important information about climate," says Knutti.

"This information could, for example, be used for further studies that quantify changes in the probability of extreme weather events, such as regional cold spells. These studies are based on model calculations, and our approach could then provide a global context of the climate change fingerprint in observations made during regional cold spells of this kind. This gives rise to new opportunities for the communication of regional weather events against the backdrop of global warming." [<-This]

The study stems from a collaboration between ETH researchers and the Swiss Data Science Center (SDSC), which ETH Zurich operates jointly with its sister university EPFL.
"The current study underlines how useful data science methods are in clarifying environmental questions, and the SDSC is of great use in this," says Knutti. Data science methods not only allow researchers to demonstrate the strength of the human "fingerprint", they also show where in the world climate change is particularly clear and recognisable at an early stage.

This is very important in the hydrological cycle, where there are very large natural fluctuations from day to day and year to year. "In future, we should therefore be able to pick out human-induced patterns and trends in other more complex measurement parameters, such as precipitation, that are hard to detect using traditional statistics," says the ETH professor.[<-and This]

Research Report: Climate change now detectable from any single day of weather at global scale
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis
Reply
Following the above post, here is a genuine Climate Science EXPERT on the situation of Climate Change/Warming. Nothing short of the former President of the American Association of State Climatologists is who is interviewed. I suppose he could have some knowledge of the subject and he tends, in a big way, to lean towards the idea that Global Warming is a big fraud...and he presents PROOF!

Ya, its a video, but it is a video of an interview with a true expert:


.
And, if that isn't convincing enough for you, try this much longer and more current video interview with:
Quote:
In this edition, Mark talks climate change with Anthony Watts of WattsUpWithThat.com, and the two guys who dismantled the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They also take questions from the audience on climate issues in North America, Europe and elsewhere.
'
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis
Reply
I'm not sure if I've posted this, it is kinda old an article, but that actually supports how long this fraud has been perpetrated against our world. I admit I am not a Climate Scientist, but it seems, most of the data purported as proof of climate change/warming, is coming from people not in climate sciences. Those facts are mentioned in the video I posted above.

Here's the big Gorilla (no pun intended; vis a vis; My Avatar) in the room on the subject of this thread:


MIT Technology Review Article Wrote:Link to Full Article

Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
by Richard Muller
Oct 15, 2004
Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isnt. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.

In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick, the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago–just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.

In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalized to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalized over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that. Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape. (Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)

The net result: the principal component will have a hockey stick shape even if most of the data do not.

McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected. In frustration, McIntyre and McKitrick put the entire record of their submission and the referee reports on a Web page for all to see. If you look, youll see that McIntyre and McKitrick have found numerous other problems with the Mann analysis. I emphasize the bug in their PCA program simply because it is so blatant and so easy to understand. Apparently, Mann and his colleagues never tested their program with the standard Monte Carlo approach, or they would have discovered the error themselves. Other and different criticisms of the hockey stick are emerging (see, for example, the paper by Hans von Storch and colleagues in the September 30 issue of Science).

Some people may complain that McIntyre and McKitrick did not publish their results in a refereed journal. That is true–but not for lack of trying. Moreover, the paper was refereed–and even better, the referee reports are there for us to read. McIntyre and McKitricks only failure was in not convincing Nature that the paper was important enough to publish.

How does this bombshell affect what we think about global warming?

It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows.

Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesnt settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously–that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small–then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one–if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)