EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 7:32 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 351 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2014 8:46 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 301
Fence sitters here is some interesting reading.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/05/why- ... facts.html

Quote:
We know from NOAA’s climate records that the earlier U.S. warming topped out in December 1935 – specifically, that’s when the 5-year average temperature hit its peak. The records for 5-year averages only go back to December 1899, thus the LIA-rebound warming dataset spans 422 months for this comparison.

Likewise, the NOAA dataset finds that the modern peak of 5-year average temperatures to have taken place during January 2002. By going all the way back to November 1967, a second 422-month temperature record is produced that happens to encompass the modern era’s large influx of consumer/industrial CO2 emissions (i.e., greenhouse gas).

So, we have two NOAA 5-year average temperature datasets, each spanning 422 months, with one including the temperature peak prior to the huge, modern CO2 emissions; the other being a period that represents the modern warming that has been so feared, which peaked in 2002.

How do these two periods compare, in terms of actual warming?




Quote:
When the temperature patterns are examined in this manner, NOAA’s objective empirical evidence indicates that both the modern U.S. warming and cooling trends are not much different than those that took place prior to the modern immense CO2 emissions released. Based on that recognition, the empirical climate science would suggest:

1.The long-term warming since at least the 1800’s is a result of the rebound in temperatures from the LIA, which is still playing out in fits and starts;
2. Similar patterns of up/down variation exhibited by all four periods (warming, cooling, warming, cooling) are likely the direct result of primary climate oscillation/cyclical determinants;

3.CO2 emissions (and other trace greenhouse gases) are not a strong factor driving the observed climate variation, nor the warming phases, nor the cooling spans; and,

4.Regardless of reason (i.e. climate attribution), recent global warming has not produced a “dangerous” 5-year warming span that is significantly different than past periods “dangerous” warming in the U.S.


No statistical difference using the gold standard NOAA between two warming and cooling trends under very different CO2 atmospheric levels. If the Cultists CAGW/CO2 theory is fact this is not possible. More CO2 equals more heat we are told. We simply are not observing that when we step out of the realm of computer models. :-

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2014 9:50 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters here is some interesting reading.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/05/why- ... facts.html

Quote:
We know from NOAA’s climate records that the earlier U.S. warming topped out in December 1935 – specifically, that’s when the 5-year average temperature hit its peak. The records for 5-year averages only go back to December 1899, thus the LIA-rebound warming dataset spans 422 months for this comparison.

Likewise, the NOAA dataset finds that the modern peak of 5-year average temperatures to have taken place during January 2002. By going all the way back to November 1967, a second 422-month temperature record is produced that happens to encompass the modern era’s large influx of consumer/industrial CO2 emissions (i.e., greenhouse gas).

So, we have two NOAA 5-year average temperature datasets, each spanning 422 months, with one including the temperature peak prior to the huge, modern CO2 emissions; the other being a period that represents the modern warming that has been so feared, which peaked in 2002.

How do these two periods compare, in terms of actual warming?




Quote:
When the temperature patterns are examined in this manner, NOAA’s objective empirical evidence indicates that both the modern U.S. warming and cooling trends are not much different than those that took place prior to the modern immense CO2 emissions released. Based on that recognition, the empirical climate science would suggest:

1.The long-term warming since at least the 1800’s is a result of the rebound in temperatures from the LIA, which is still playing out in fits and starts;
2. Similar patterns of up/down variation exhibited by all four periods (warming, cooling, warming, cooling) are likely the direct result of primary climate oscillation/cyclical determinants;

3.CO2 emissions (and other trace greenhouse gases) are not a strong factor driving the observed climate variation, nor the warming phases, nor the cooling spans; and,

4.Regardless of reason (i.e. climate attribution), recent global warming has not produced a “dangerous” 5-year warming span that is significantly different than past periods “dangerous” warming in the U.S.


No statistical difference using the gold standard NOAA between two warming and cooling trends under very different CO2 atmospheric levels. If the Cultists CAGW/CO2 theory is fact this is not possible. More CO2 equals more heat we are told. We simply are not observing that when we step out of the realm of computer models. :-


If one ignores that small problem with the area being discussed. The regional temperature of the US is not the world as much as some would like to confuse the two. Of course honesty is not the goal of these presentations so even major factual issues are ignored in the push to promote a political agenda.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2014 11:22 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 301
Like I've always said fence sitters. Like I've always said.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... imperative

Quote:
The EU’s chief scientific advisor has admitted that eurocrats twist the way scientific evidence is gathered in order to meet their “political imperative.”

Prof Anne Glover, appointed in 2011 to provide the European Commission with independent scientific advice, said in a speech in Brussels that political manoeuvring over evidence has reached into “countless examples” of EU policy, including on the safety of nanoparticles, the impact of biofuels on food prices and chemical substances with hormone-disrupting effects.

She said she found it difficult to disentangle the commission’s evidence-gathering processes from what she calls the “political imperative” that is behind them.


Quote:
According to the Euractiv report, Glover also said that the commission is not alone in distorting facts. The European Parliament and the European Council, which is made up of the 28 heads of state and government of the EU, do it as well.

“‘What happens at the moment, whether it’s in commission, parliament or council, is that time and time again, if people don’t like what’s being proposed, what they say is that there is something wrong with the evidence.”

The distortion of scientific evidence also spills over into the private sector and pressure groups trying to influence EU policy.

For example, the EU’s 2007 REACH policy (Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) generated 36 different impact assessment studies, many from within the chemicals industry warning of the disastrous costs of the policy.

Yet, said Glover, “A final impact study ended up broadly confirming the Commission’s original assessment.”

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2014 4:33 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Like I've always said fence sitters. Like I've always said.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... imperative

Quote:
The EU’s chief scientific advisor has admitted that eurocrats twist the way scientific evidence is gathered in order to meet their “political imperative.”

Prof Anne Glover, appointed in 2011 to provide the European Commission with independent scientific advice, said in a speech in Brussels that political manoeuvring over evidence has reached into “countless examples” of EU policy, including on the safety of nanoparticles, the impact of biofuels on food prices and chemical substances with hormone-disrupting effects.

She said she found it difficult to disentangle the commission’s evidence-gathering processes from what she calls the “political imperative” that is behind them.


Quote:
According to the Euractiv report, Glover also said that the commission is not alone in distorting facts. The European Parliament and the European Council, which is made up of the 28 heads of state and government of the EU, do it as well.

“‘What happens at the moment, whether it’s in commission, parliament or council, is that time and time again, if people don’t like what’s being proposed, what they say is that there is something wrong with the evidence.”

The distortion of scientific evidence also spills over into the private sector and pressure groups trying to influence EU policy.

For example, the EU’s 2007 REACH policy (Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) generated 36 different impact assessment studies, many from within the chemicals industry warning of the disastrous costs of the policy.

Yet, said Glover, “A final impact study ended up broadly confirming the Commission’s original assessment.”


A political denailist blog interpreting an article to point out the attempt of political groups to modify or corrupt scientific evidence for political reasons does not scream "irony" to anyone else? The science speaks for itself when the political tilting groups, such as the one quoted, are removed.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2014 10:41 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 301
Yet another aspect of this complete and total fraud.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/30/scien ... ic-demand/

Quote:
Researchers with the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) recently admitted to experienced zoologist and polar bear specialist Susan Crockford that the estimate given for the total number of polar bars in the Arctic was “simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”



Quote:
Polar bears became the first species listed under the Endangered Species Act because they could potentially be harmed by global warming. But some recent studies have found that some polar bear subpopulations have actually flourished in recent years.

“So, the global estimates were… ‘simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand’ and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used,” Crockford said.

“All this glosses over what I think is a critical point: none of these ‘global population estimates’ (from 2001 onward) came anywhere close to being estimates of the actual world population size of polar bears (regardless of how scientifically inaccurate they might have been) — rather, they were estimates of only the subpopulations that Arctic biologists have tried to count,” she added.


One aspect of this article I will disagree with. The public is not demanding this fraud. The Cultists are demanding this fraud take place. The Cultist understand they are losing in the court of public opinion. The Cultists understand the more this onion is peeled away their standing is diminished. Time and time again it has been proven the Cultists have to resort to fraud to argue their case. Some of the Cultists proudly admit that they lie for their cause. Fence sitters yet another example of fraud in this community and research to be completely defended without question by the Cultists. Seeing a pattern here?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2014 11:16 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Yet another aspect of this complete and total fraud.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/30/scien ... ic-demand/

Quote:
Researchers with the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) recently admitted to experienced zoologist and polar bear specialist Susan Crockford that the estimate given for the total number of polar bars in the Arctic was “simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”



Quote:
Polar bears became the first species listed under the Endangered Species Act because they could potentially be harmed by global warming. But some recent studies have found that some polar bear subpopulations have actually flourished in recent years.

“So, the global estimates were… ‘simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand’ and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used,” Crockford said.

“All this glosses over what I think is a critical point: none of these ‘global population estimates’ (from 2001 onward) came anywhere close to being estimates of the actual world population size of polar bears (regardless of how scientifically inaccurate they might have been) — rather, they were estimates of only the subpopulations that Arctic biologists have tried to count,” she added.


One aspect of this article I will disagree with. The public is not demanding this fraud. The Cultists are demanding this fraud take place. The Cultist understand they are losing in the court of public opinion. The Cultists understand the more this onion is peeled away their standing is diminished. Time and time again it has been proven the Cultists have to resort to fraud to argue their case. Some of the Cultists proudly admit that they lie for their cause. Fence sitters yet another example of fraud in this community and research to be completely defended without question by the Cultists. Seeing a pattern here?


An estimate of a wide ranging animal population is by definition a qualified guess unless all of the population is marked for tracking. The concept of how things work is clearly clouded by the political views of this poster.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:54 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 301
And now fence sitters it time for another edition of As the Climate Science Turns. Who knows what they're going to come up with this time.

Quote:
Dear Orson

Very sorry for such a slow reply.

The individual curves (Tornetrask, Taimyr and Yamal) have not been calibrated against their local temperature records yet, and so only exist as standardised (or normalised) anomalies.

For the calibrated Tornetrask record of Briffa et al. (1992), the calibrated reconstruction made use of both tree-ring width and tree-ring density and so it will look different to the ring-width only record shown in the PAGES newsletter recently. For the earlier extension to this record, only ring-width will be available - which is why the calibrated record cannot be simply extended with the new data. Instead, a new calibration needs to be made, using ring-width only. This hasn't been done yet, and - while it *might* be a simple linear regression - sometimes ring-widths from one year and from the previous year are used together as predictors, so I cannot guarantee that it will be a simple rescaling of the uncalibrated curve. Nevertheless, the uncalibrated curve *is* correlated with summer temperature, so it certainly provides useful information.

The average of the three series was calibrated *after* they were averaged, and was calibrated against the April-September mean temperature over all land north of 20N. This was purely for comparison with the other curves shown in our Science piece; for this curve, this region is by no means the optimum, and the temperature anomalies would no doubt differ in magnitude if a regional temperature from northern Eurasia had been used instead. This offers one explanation of why the 650-750 warming differs from Briffa et al. (1992). The second is that only ring-width has been used. The third reason is that it is the average of 3 curves - if the other two don't show the warming, or not as strongly, then of course the signal will be less pronounced in the average. So, you can still use the Briffa et al. (1992) calibration - it is certainly not wrong.

Hope this helps with your choice of what to use.

We will send you a reprint to your Middletown address when they arrive. I am now going to mail you hard copy (black & white) of the Tornetrask uncalibrated ring-width record (annual and 50-yr smoothed) from the PAGES article, and also a hard copy of the calibrated northern Eurasia record from the Science paper. The northern Eurasian record should preferably be referenced using both Briffa & Osborn and Briffa et al.

Best regards

Tim


"The individual curves (Tornetrask, Taimyr and Yamal) have not been calibrated against their local temperature records yet, and so only exist as standardised (or normalised) anomalies."

What kind of study requires that data be calibrated against temperature data? Unless you're trying to augment the temperature data because you don't like what its telling you.

"For the calibrated Tornetrask record of Briffa et al. (1992), the calibrated reconstruction made use of both tree-ring width and tree-ring density and so it will look different to the ring-width only record shown in the PAGES newsletter recently."

Why add in tree ring density to make the record "look different?" Not liking what you're seeing out of the data so you have to make it look sexy for a newsletter and future grant proposals?

" For the earlier extension to this record, only ring-width will be available - which is why the calibrated record cannot be simply extended with the new data. Instead, a new calibration needs to be made, using ring-width only. This hasn't been done yet, and - while it *might* be a simple linear regression - sometimes ring-widths from one year and from the previous year are used together as predictors, so I cannot guarantee that it will be a simple rescaling of the uncalibrated curve."

Calibrated records cannot be used with new data? Why the incompatibility? Backward engineering is hard isn't it.

While it "might" be a simple linear regression? MIGHT? Yes, might figures prominently in climate science as I have demonstrated in the past. This researcher cannot "guarantee" something about an uncalibrated curve. Well, we must "guarantee" the research says what the predetermined outcome states.

" Nevertheless, the uncalibrated curve *is* correlated with summer temperature, so it certainly provides useful information."

Why calibrate summer temperature with a tree ring proxy study? Some serious backward engineering going on here with out a doubt. Taking two completely different methodologies and trying to mix them together is exactly what Dr. Mann did. That guy that is trying to use the court system to hide his methodology. Should make you think fence sitters.

"The average of the three series was calibrated *after* they were averaged, and was calibrated against the April-September mean temperature over all land north of 20N."

So, some of the data was calibrated before, and some "after." Why would you want to do this? Change methodology several times with the same data? Using different temperature records (a completely different methodology) to arrived at a conclusion the researcher wants. To ultimately be comparable with a Briffa study. All right climate scientists lets huddle up and decide on a play that will result in all of us being on the same page. We are talking about warming here fence sitters. Temperature records should be enough, but not to these boneheads. They are mixing and matching, calibrating, smoothing, standardizing, correlating, normalizing, averaging, augmenting, and using different types of studies to backward engineer a preconceived notion. No doubt about it.

"The third reason is that it is the average of 3 curves - if the other two don't show the warming, or not as strongly, then of course the signal will be less pronounced in the average. So, you can still use the Briffa et al. (1992) calibration - it is certainly not wrong."

If Briffa et al's calibration "is certainly not wrong" than why are you trying to use another calibration? #-o

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:21 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
And now fence sitters it time for another edition of As the Climate Science Turns. Who knows what they're going to come up with this time.

Quote:
Dear Orson

Very sorry for such a slow reply.

The individual curves (Tornetrask, Taimyr and Yamal) have not been calibrated against their local temperature records yet, and so only exist as standardised (or normalised) anomalies.

For the calibrated Tornetrask record of Briffa et al. (1992), the calibrated reconstruction made use of both tree-ring width and tree-ring density and so it will look different to the ring-width only record shown in the PAGES newsletter recently. For the earlier extension to this record, only ring-width will be available - which is why the calibrated record cannot be simply extended with the new data. Instead, a new calibration needs to be made, using ring-width only. This hasn't been done yet, and - while it *might* be a simple linear regression - sometimes ring-widths from one year and from the previous year are used together as predictors, so I cannot guarantee that it will be a simple rescaling of the uncalibrated curve. Nevertheless, the uncalibrated curve *is* correlated with summer temperature, so it certainly provides useful information.

The average of the three series was calibrated *after* they were averaged, and was calibrated against the April-September mean temperature over all land north of 20N. This was purely for comparison with the other curves shown in our Science piece; for this curve, this region is by no means the optimum, and the temperature anomalies would no doubt differ in magnitude if a regional temperature from northern Eurasia had been used instead. This offers one explanation of why the 650-750 warming differs from Briffa et al. (1992). The second is that only ring-width has been used. The third reason is that it is the average of 3 curves - if the other two don't show the warming, or not as strongly, then of course the signal will be less pronounced in the average. So, you can still use the Briffa et al. (1992) calibration - it is certainly not wrong.

Hope this helps with your choice of what to use.

We will send you a reprint to your Middletown address when they arrive. I am now going to mail you hard copy (black & white) of the Tornetrask uncalibrated ring-width record (annual and 50-yr smoothed) from the PAGES article, and also a hard copy of the calibrated northern Eurasia record from the Science paper. The northern Eurasian record should preferably be referenced using both Briffa & Osborn and Briffa et al.

Best regards

Tim


"The individual curves (Tornetrask, Taimyr and Yamal) have not been calibrated against their local temperature records yet, and so only exist as standardised (or normalised) anomalies."

What kind of study requires that data be calibrated against temperature data?


Proxy temperature studies, such as the specices of trees mention, which would have the tree rings calibrated against temperature to develop a proxy temperature from the ring data. If you had any background in science you might know that, but as it stands we have the clueless telling us incorrect information.

Quote:
"For the calibrated Tornetrask record of Briffa et al. (1992), the calibrated reconstruction made use of both tree-ring width and tree-ring density and so it will look different to the ring-width only record shown in the PAGES newsletter recently."

Why add in tree ring density to make the record "look different?" Not liking what you're seeing out of the data so you have to make it look sexy for a newsletter and future grant proposals?


The difference in look is not the goal but the effect of looking at more of the ring variables to help ensure a better proxy reconstruction.

Quote:
" For the earlier extension to this record, only ring-width will be available - which is why the calibrated record cannot be simply extended with the new data. Instead, a new calibration needs to be made, using ring-width only. This hasn't been done yet, and - while it *might* be a simple linear regression - sometimes ring-widths from one year and from the previous year are used together as predictors, so I cannot guarantee that it will be a simple rescaling of the uncalibrated curve."

Calibrated records cannot be used with new data? Why the incompatibility? Backward engineering is hard isn't it.


It is not "emgineering, but recordeed data. The calibrations based on width and denisty will be different than just width or density. Until the actual calibrations are compared the effect would nto be known.

Quote:
While it "might" be a simple linear regression? MIGHT? Yes, might figures prominently in climate science as I have demonstrated in the past. This researcher cannot "guarantee" something about an uncalibrated curve. Well, we must "guarantee" the research says what the predetermined outcome states.


Yes, you make these uneducated and illogical assumptions, but not everyone else does that.

Quote:
" Nevertheless, the uncalibrated curve *is* correlated with summer temperature, so it certainly provides useful information."

Why calibrate summer temperature with a tree ring proxy study?


The bulk of tree growth happens when? What is the season where more data can be availabel for mor eisolated locations? Perhaps just a little research would assist you.


Quote:
"The average of the three series was calibrated *after* they were averaged, and was calibrated against the April-September mean temperature over all land north of 20N."

So, some of the data was calibrated before, and some "after."


The average of the three series was calibrated with the average temperature for the growing season. I realize averages are hard for you, but that is what determines climate from weather.

Quote:
Why would you want to do this? Change methodology several times with the same data? Using different temperature records (a completely different methodology) to arrived at a conclusion the researcher wants. To ultimately be comparable with a Briffa study. All right climate scientists lets huddle up and decide on a play that will result in all of us being on the same page. We are talking about warming here fence sitters. Temperature records should be enough, but not to these boneheads. They are mixing and matching, calibrating, smoothing, standardizing, correlating, normalizing, averaging, augmenting, and using different types of studies to backward engineer a preconceived notion. No doubt about it.


Someone as clueless about science as yourself is calling experts "boneheads"? You are truly a piece of work ... incorrect work at that.

Quote:
"The third reason is that it is the average of 3 curves - if the other two don't show the warming, or not as strongly, then of course the signal will be less pronounced in the average. So, you can still use the Briffa et al. (1992) calibration - it is certainly not wrong."

If Briffa et al's calibration "is certainly not wrong" than why are you trying to use another calibration? #-o


A better correlation. A means to confirm through another approach. Just because they want to be able to answer in the affirmative if they are asked whether they tried other calibrations.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:06 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 301
Fence sitters I give you Roseburg, Oregon.

Image

Now fence sitters this is not a case of new construction catching up with a properly placed USHCN station. Oh no. So, why would you want to set up a temperature monitoring station in this fashion?

Now fence sitters a little inside baseball. This is a shot of the inside of a Stevenson Screen located at Lovelock, Nevada. Notice there is a light bulb located on the inside.

Image

What would happen to the data if the light bulb was left on? You see fence sitters there are complicated tricks as in Mike Nature Trick, and simple tricks such as installing an incandescent light bulb inside a Stevenson Screen. Or placing a USHCN Station on a roof top. This all is defended by the Cultists as pure as the wind driven snow science. It is clearly demonstrable that its not. It is clearly dishonest to the hilt. All of these tricks are to bias the data to a higher value. It is clearly working backward to a preconceived notion.

Wow, viewership must be up. 16,500 hits so quickly. Thanks fence sitters. We can get facts, truth, and the message out if we keep at it. =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:52 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters I give you Roseburg, Oregon.


And enough lies and misinformation to be a politician.


Quote:
Now fence sitters this is not a case of new construction catching up with a properly placed USHCN station. Oh no. So, why would you want to set up a temperature monitoring station in this fashion?


You are sure about your assumptions but not about what actually happened, right? A little investigation might reveal all of the answers.

Quote:
Now fence sitters a little inside baseball. This is a shot of the inside of a Stevenson Screen located at Lovelock, Nevada. Notice there is a light bulb located on the inside.

What would happen to the data if the light bulb was left on? You see fence sitters there are complicated tricks as in Mike Nature Trick, and simple tricks such as installing an incandescent light bulb inside a Stevenson Screen. Or placing a USHCN Station on a roof top.


So it is your contention these are sesigned to create some change in the data? Just how big does your conspiracy theory have to be? What were the dates of construction for these locations?

Quote:
This all is defended by the Cultists as pure as the wind driven snow science. It is clearly demonstrable that its not. It is clearly dishonest to the hilt. All of these tricks are to bias the data to a higher value. It is clearly working backward to a preconceived notion.


And how many decdaes ago did this have to be determined to cause the bias? Please provide the data for these sites that show the clear increase these accusations would cause, if you can. If you cannot we will understand the political assumptions are not supported by scientific data.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:23 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 301
More climate McCarthyism fence sitters.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... her-victim

Quote:
Rossiter, a former Democratic congressional candidate, has impeccably liberal credentials. As the founder of Demilitarization for Democracy he has campaigned against US backed wars in Central America and Southern Africa, against US military support for dictators and against anti-personnel landmines. But none of this was enough to spare him the wrath of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) when he wrote an OpEd in the Wall Street Journal describing man-made global warming as an "unproved science."

Two days later, he was sacked by email. The IPS said: "We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies...Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of US policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours."

In the WSJ OpEd entitled Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change, Rossiter argued that Africans should benefit from the same mixed energy policy as Americans rather than being denied access to fossil fuels on spurious environmental grounds by green activists. He wrote: "The left wants to stop industrialization - even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false."

But the Institute for Policy Studies ("Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice, and the Environment") is ideologically committed to ensuring that Africans only enjoy the benefits of expensive, intermittent, inefficient renewable energy such as wind and solar.

Rossiter told Climate Depot:

"If people ever say that fears of censorship for 'climate change' views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the 'all of the above' energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs 'diverge.'"


His sacking follows the persecution last month of Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish meteorologist and climatologist who decided to resign his position at the Global Warming Policy Foundation after being harassed by climate alarmists for his "incorrect" views on man-made climate change.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/12/p ... t-journal/

Quote:
Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd declaring ‘the left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false’. Prof. Caleb Rossiter: ‘Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’

IPS email of ‘termination’ to Rossiter: ‘We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies…Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours’


Yes fence sitters the Cultists who claim to be the smartest in the room at all times can't tolerate a dissenting view point among themselves. Then they turn around and behave like the spoiled knuckle draggers that they are and fire a guy via email after 23 years of faithful service. Real classy.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 7:38 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 301
Excellent lecture fence sitters. Well worth your time.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/13/d ... k-at-eike/

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:36 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 301
One of the many things I have always said fence sitters is follow the money.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/14/i ... h-funding/

Quote:
Andrew Resnick has written a letter published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that suggests researchers are “addicted” to funding, much like drug addicts. His words, not mine.


17,000 hits we're just humming along nicely. Well done fence sitters. =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:45 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 301
This is interesting.

http://www.principia-scientific.org/aca ... reens.html

Quote:
Professor Ian Plimer has never been renowned for moderation in his opinions about the extremist elements of the green movement and in this book he launches on them in a full-blooded, broken-bottle attack.not for greens

In his own words: “What started as a ­laudable movement to prevent the despoilation of certain areas of natural beauty has morphed into an authoritarian, anti-progress, anti-democratic, anti-human monster.” That Plimer should attack the greens is no surprise. More impressive is the book’s foreword, written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, who fully ­supports Plimer.

He congratulates Plimer for a book that provides a “different . . . and extremely rational look at the agenda of the green movement today”. “In many respects, they have become a combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one,” Moore says.

“There is no better example of this than the fervent belief in human-caused ­catastrophic climate change.” Moore even rejects the core green belief that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful.


For those of you interested here is a very good lecture conducted by Plimer.

Ian Plimer lecture

part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VDDNgl-UPk

part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRwTbMj6Hx8

part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1lkdNOPVA

part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWiv5QAZAJM

part 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIpo2Jhi3I0

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:33 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 301
Take note fence sitters.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpres ... -findings/

Quote:
Receding Swiss Glaciers Reveal 4000 Year Old Forests – Warmists Try To Suppress Findings


Of course that's what the Cultist knuckle draggers know how to do when the science is not on their side. Impune, suppress, bully, and they'll get around to out right character assassination on this guy when they can.

Quote:
Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”

Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.


Now fence sitters this is important because the whole Cultist house of cards will fall with one fact. It has been warmer in the past before man could have possibly been responsible. Nature or natural variability is the best possible answer to explain how it could have been warmer than today in the past. The Cultist can't have that. That is one of two things Mann et al was all about. Erase the Midevil Warming Period. They can't admit that it was warmer in the past.

Quote:
Regarding IPCC integrity with strong suspicion, Schlüchter recounts a meeting in England that he was “accidentally” invited to which was led by “someone of the East Anglia Climate Center who had come under fire in the wake of the Climategate e-mails.”

As he describes it: “The leader of the meeting spoke like some kind of Father. He was seated at a table in front of those gathered and he took messages. He commented on them either benevolently or dismissively.”

Schlüchter’s view of the proceeding took a final nosedive towards the end of the discussion. As he noted: “Lastly it was about tips on research funding proposals and where to submit them best. For me it was impressive to see how the leader of the meeting collected and selected information.”

As a number of other prominent climate scientists I know will attest, there’s one broadly recognized universal tip for those seeking government funding. All proposals with any real prospects for success should somehow link climate change with human activities rather than to natural causes. Even better, those human influences should intone dangerous consequences.

Schlüchter warns that the reputation of science is becoming more and more damaged as politics and money gain influence. He concludes, “For me it also gets down to the credibility of science . . . Today many natural scientists are helping hands of politicians, and are no longer scientists who occupy themselves with new knowledge and data. And that worries me.”

Yes. That should worry everyone.


"Helping hands of politicians." I have to write that one down. That's good.

Keep a sharp eye out fence sitters. No doubt this guy is next on the Cultist's Climate McCarthyism hit parade.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 351 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group