Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (4066)	7/3/2014 12:41:22 PM
From: weatherguru	2 Recommendations Recommended By d[-_-]b Magnatizer Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4326

Thanks for the reply. I said NOAA fudges data. I provided proof. You allude that 1988 is outdated. Tell it to NOAA. That is the method NOAA uses to fudge data. It's a peer-reviewed article from the Journal of Climate. I won't claim fraud, but I am downright skeptical when someone recreates the past using "statistical methods". I am very skeptical of it, and that is my opinion. Why am I skeptical? If someone can use "statistical methods" to interpolate sparse regions from 250 years ago or even from the 1930's, e.g. Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, whole damn Arctic, Siberia, etc., then these "methods" must properly recreate the structure and variability of teleconnection patterns using very sparse data. I doubt it, since these low-frequency patterns don't follow any kind of "statistical" distribution. Not many have a grasp on these patterns, especially considering no one can properly forecast changes in these patterns or interaction among the patterns. It's very non-linear. Here's my favorite part of the article. "The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity." Well shit, I guess the sun has got nothing to do with it!

To: Don Hurst who wrote (4066)	7/3/2014 9:31:12 PM
From: sense	2 Recommendations Recommended By jlallen weatherguru Respond to of 4326

Without reading the work... just looking at the dates... His study starts from the little ice age... and shows warming occurring ? LOL!! Go figure. Choose different dates... get different results. That's the "same old" scam we've seen operated often enough by others... that depends on cherry picking specific [bracketed] data points... thus producing statistically invalid results. Then, more warming over the last 50 years... with dates and numbers that appear they precisely synch with the (recently retracted) NOAA claims ? But, NOAA just RETRACTED their own similar claims because they were based on NOAA's admittedly COOKED DATA that resulted in "proving" the existence of "warming" in that period... when there wasn't any... and, since then, they restored 1937 as their "warmest" year ? So, you can probably ignore ALL the studies that were done PRIOR to the admission that the database they depend on was (deliberately) corrupted... Of course, NOAA retracting their data... invalidates EVERY STUDY done prior to now that depended on that cooked data, or on any similarly flawed methodology ? How many studies is that... who is going to identify them for us ? queue <crickets chirping>. And, what did those studies COST ? FWIW... should also point out that the FRAUD being practiced also has HUGE consequences, including LEGAL consequences for those engaged in the manufacture of statistically invalid studies... in terms of that professional malpractice resulting not in "science" but in purposefully wasted $$$... as all the money spent on those "studies" using the fraudulent data or invalid statistical methodology... was money poured down a rat hole. Scientists who don't generate and validate their own data using STATISTICALLY SOUND METHODS... are wasting their time and our $$$. The requirement for the use of statisitically sound methods... eliminates the use of ANY computer model as a source of "data"... because NONE of the models thus far have proven even remotely close to "correct" in generating functions that can duplicate REAL climate variation. When you know your model doesn't work... but use the results it generates anyway... that's FRAUD. The reality is that no study, however well intended, can ever be better than than the data used. When the data are corrupt... so is any study based on them. Garbage in, garbage out... wasn't invented for computers... but it sure does MATTER whether you depend on garbage or not... while using computers to excuse not applying ACTUALLY statistically valid methods. In large swaths of the work done on global warming... the data used was created DELIBERATELY in error...the vast majority of it was generated using statistically invalid methods... intending to skew all those studies that depended on them... to support the POLITICS of those who generated the fraudulent data and advocate for the use of fraudulently generated data...

To: Don Hurst who wrote (4066)	7/7/2014 10:26:04 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming. Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available. According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century. Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year cooling period does present some interesting facts. First, global warming is not so dramatic and uniform as alarmists claim. For example, prominent alarmist James Hansen claimed in 2010, “Global warming on decadal time scales is continuing without letup … effectively illustrat[ing] the monotonic and substantial warming that is occurring on decadal time scales.” The word “monotonic” means, according to Merriam-Webster Online, “having the property either of never increasing or of never decreasing as the values of the independent variable or the subscripts of the terms increase.” Well, either temperatures are decreasing by 0.4 degrees Celsius every decade or they are not monotonic. Second, for those who may point out U.S. temperatures do not equate to global temperatures, the USCRN data are entirely consistent with – and indeed lend additional evidentiary support for – the global warming stagnation of the past 17-plus years. While objective temperature data show there has been no global warming since sometime last century, the USCRN data confirm this ongoing stagnation in the United States, also. Third, the USCRN data debunk claims that rising U.S. temperatures caused wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events during the past year. The objective data show droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent and severe in recent decades as our planet modestly warms. But even ignoring such objective data, it is difficult to claim global warming is causing recent U.S. droughts and wildfires when U.S. temperatures are a full 0.4 degrees Celsius colder than they were in 2005. Even more importantly than the facts above, the USCRN provides the promise of reliable nationwide temperature data for years to come. No longer will global warming alarmists be able to hide behind thinly veiled excuses to doctor the U.S. temperature record. Now, thanks to the USCRN, the data are what the data are. Expect global warming alarmists, now and for the foreseeable future, to howl in desperation claiming the USCRN temperature data are irrelevant. Of course, to global warming alarmists, all real-world data are irrelevant. forbes.com