U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-05-2019, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
15,995 posts, read 13,698,398 times
Reputation: 4840

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoodTheBadTheUgly View Post
And Yet we’re going to spend trillions and lower our standard of living over a hoax!

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/p...ata-locations/
In Oklahoma City, the temp averages have been down nearly every month for the past year, assuming the official weather station there is properly sited. If they switch to say its global cooling, that won't end well either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2019, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Florida
23,056 posts, read 9,896,195 times
Reputation: 19002
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoodTheBadTheUgly View Post
And Yet we’re going to spend trillions and lower our standard of living over a hoax!
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/p...ata-locations/
How about we raise our standards for meteorology? Anthony Watts is an ex-television weather presenter on local tv in 2004, who does not hold actual meteorology credentials. He makes a living attempting to disprove real science. Maybe he should go back to school and get an actual degree.

"...So called “climate skeptics” deploy an arsenal of misleading graphics, with which the human influence on the climate can be down played (here are two other examples deconstructed at Realclimate). The image below is especially widespread. It is displayed on many “climate skeptic” websites and is regularly updated...."

"It requires quite some skill to produce a misleading graph like Watts’ global climate widget, which hides the actual connections between global temperature, CO2 and the sunspot cycle. Watts’ widget is quite a useful indicator though: whenever you see it on a website, you know they are trying to fool rather than inform you there...."

"...On his blog, Watts has attempted to defend his claims on PBS news hour by referencing a preliminary, unsubmitted, unpublished paper he has drafted which purports to identify problems in the temperature record. However, that preliminary paper contains numerous fundamental flaws which entirely negate its conclusions, and since it has not passed peer-review, according to Watts' own comments it is not "a successful inquiry..."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...climate-graph/

https://skepticalscience.com/watts_n..._critique.html

https://skepticalscience.com/watts-pbs-newshour.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2019, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Seattle
1,937 posts, read 424,046 times
Reputation: 1846
Every instrument ever made has some degree of inaccuracy. The way science tries to work is they use multiple, independent sources of data to verify the results. For example, climate variation can be checked using instruments, tree rings, lake deposits, ice cores, coral growth, and so forth. Statistical mathematics is used to determine the variation and to find outliers due to measurement errors. Scholarly peer review is there to make sure the data is used properly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2019, 06:25 PM
 
1,441 posts, read 477,934 times
Reputation: 1934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vf6cruiser View Post
We have to understand gorbal worming is a religion......nothing said on C-D will change their minds on this obvious hoax......
Not my religion ,not my Dogma.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2019, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Long Island
34,663 posts, read 14,536,595 times
Reputation: 7465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
How about we raise our standards for meteorology? Anthony Watts is an ex-television weather presenter on local tv in 2004, who does not hold actual meteorology credentials. He makes a living attempting to disprove real science. Maybe he should go back to school and get an actual degree.

"...So called “climate skeptics” deploy an arsenal of misleading graphics, with which the human influence on the climate can be down played (here are two other examples deconstructed at Realclimate). The image below is especially widespread. It is displayed on many “climate skeptic” websites and is regularly updated...."

"It requires quite some skill to produce a misleading graph like Watts’ global climate widget, which hides the actual connections between global temperature, CO2 and the sunspot cycle. Watts’ widget is quite a useful indicator though: whenever you see it on a website, you know they are trying to fool rather than inform you there...."

"...On his blog, Watts has attempted to defend his claims on PBS news hour by referencing a preliminary, unsubmitted, unpublished paper he has drafted which purports to identify problems in the temperature record. However, that preliminary paper contains numerous fundamental flaws which entirely negate its conclusions, and since it has not passed peer-review, according to Watts' own comments it is not "a successful inquiry..."

The most popular deceptive climate graph « RealClimate

https://skepticalscience.com/watts_n..._critique.html

https://skepticalscience.com/watts-pbs-newshour.html
Watts has done this before and has never proven his point other than some stations had issues but certainly not enough to tilt the data. Besides is he really going to make the argument that its not warming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2019, 07:13 PM
 
20,071 posts, read 12,624,022 times
Reputation: 11249
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
Every instrument ever made has some degree of inaccuracy. The way science tries to work is they use multiple, independent sources of data to verify the results. For example, climate variation can be checked using instruments, tree rings, lake deposits, ice cores, coral growth, and so forth. Statistical mathematics is used to determine the variation and to find outliers due to measurement errors. Scholarly peer review is there to make sure the data is used properly.
It is? So didn't Mann's peers reject his "hockey stick" article when it was first submitted?

So why do AGW papers use four different temp measurements and assume that "proxy temps" have the same standard deviation in measurements as satellite data?

Why has AGW relied upon inconsistent temp locations?

Why has AGW far under weighted the greatest surface area of the earth (the oceans)?

Why has AGW not adhered to defined measuring standards, except over the last 20 years in which NO WARMING has been identified?

AGW is a statistical and methodological hoax perpetuated upon those who have essentially no understanding as to what constitutes a valid scientific study. When the data collecting methods are subjected to uniform standards, suddenly the "warming" disappears.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2019, 07:16 PM
 
25,502 posts, read 12,494,728 times
Reputation: 11002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Go tell the Northwest Passage, I'm sure it will start freezing right back over.
It will in winter. You know, weather, it gets cold in the winter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2019, 07:21 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,414 posts, read 13,795,496 times
Reputation: 5956
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoodTheBadTheUgly View Post
And Yet we’re going to spend trillions and lower our standard of living over a hoax!

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/p...ata-locations/
It's painful watching people pretend that they are climate experts because they read denier blogs.

I mean, the obvious counter to this is that it has no bearing whatsoever on satellite atmospheric data, which continue to show higher and higher temperatures across the board. Also, a meteorologist is not a climate expert. They have some similarities, but are actually very different fields of study. Also, a good, science-based study on land-based temperatures could easily take into account any potential inaccurate thermometer calibrations. This guy seems clueless.

The illiterate thugs are going to kill us all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2019, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Haiku
5,129 posts, read 2,878,339 times
Reputation: 7510
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoodTheBadTheUgly View Post
And Yet we’re going to spend trillions and lower our standard of living over a hoax!

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/p...ata-locations/
I think Anthony Watts should publish his findings so that the AGW crowd can see how they're all wrong. Oh wait, the data has already been published and discussed! Problem solved! But of course the denier crowd will claim conspiracy, ignorant liberal scientists, blah blah blah.

Really, there will always be deniers of anything - there are flat-earthers, there are people who believe man never landed on the moon, there are people who don't believe the Holocaust happened, or Sandy Hook. So a few AGW deniers is to be expected. But it is pointless to debate with them as they will cling to their conspiracy theories. So what's the point? The world has moved on. Like it or not, AGW is a policy driver for most countries and many industries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2019, 07:35 PM
 
25,502 posts, read 12,494,728 times
Reputation: 11002
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
I think Anthony Watts should publish his findings so that the AGW crowd can see how they're all wrong. Oh wait, the data has already been published and discussed! Problem solved! But of course the denier crowd will claim conspiracy, ignorant liberal scientists, blah blah blah.

Really, there will always be deniers of anything - there are flat-earthers, there are people who believe man never landed on the moon, there are people who don't believe the Holocaust happened, or Sandy Hook. So a few AGW deniers is to be expected. But it is pointless to debate with them as they will cling to their conspiracy theories. So what's the point? The world has moved on. Like it or not, AGW is a policy driver for most countries and many industries.
So you are denying that the global warming deniers are denying what you are claiming to deny?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top