The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread

[sonofdaxjones]

$500 billion in subsidies and funding for "green" energy by Western Governments last year, and it's growing by 20% a year.

But they'll be those that still say there's no way that people aren't just lining up to get on the gravy train.

[ednksu]

That's seriously the webpage you're going with for a scientific explanation?  I mean he totally leaves out the reason why NASA "cooled" the baseline and his "analysis" appears to be only comparing 2 unlike graphs.  Additionally what about the point of models being an effective tool for plotting.  It's not like you *need* temp data from every square kilometer to be accurate in plotting trends.

[CHONGS]

What a great website 

Goddard is great!

[sonofdaxjones]

That's seriously the webpage you're going with for a scientific explanation?  I mean he totally leaves out the reason why NASA "cooled" the baseline and his "analysis" appears to be only comparing 2 unlike graphs.  Additionally what about the point of models being an effective tool for plotting.  It's not like you *need* temp data from every square kilometer to be accurate in plotting trends.

Or, we can discuss the Sat temp measurements.   You could write War and Peace x5 picking apart all the data manipulation that NASA/NOAA does on temps.

There's a 10's of Kilmeters not mapped, and then there's 1000's.   Not to mention huge swaths of Russia/Former Soviet Union where the weather stations don't work anymore.   

[ednksu]

That's seriously the webpage you're going with for a scientific explanation?  I mean he totally leaves out the reason why NASA "cooled" the baseline and his "analysis" appears to be only comparing 2 unlike graphs.  Additionally what about the point of models being an effective tool for plotting.  It's not like you *need* temp data from every square kilometer to be accurate in plotting trends.

Or, we can discuss the Sat temp measurements.   You could write War and Peace x5 picking apart all the data manipulation that NASA/NOAA does on temps.

There's a 10's of Kilmeters not mapped, and then there's 1000's.   Not to mention huge swaths of Russia/Former Soviet Union where the weather stations don't work anymore.

Okay where is a webpage that discusses how the data was manipulated rather than pointing out accusations. 

[sonofdaxjones]

That's seriously the webpage you're going with for a scientific explanation?  I mean he totally leaves out the reason why NASA "cooled" the baseline and his "analysis" appears to be only comparing 2 unlike graphs.  Additionally what about the point of models being an effective tool for plotting.  It's not like you *need* temp data from every square kilometer to be accurate in plotting trends.

Or, we can discuss the Sat temp measurements.   You could write War and Peace x5 picking apart all the data manipulation that NASA/NOAA does on temps.

There's a 10's of Kilmeters not mapped, and then there's 1000's.   Not to mention huge swaths of Russia/Former Soviet Union where the weather stations don't work anymore.

Okay where is a webpage that discusses how the data was manipulated rather than pointing out accusations.

You can't read?

[ednksu]

That's seriously the webpage you're going with for a scientific explanation?  I mean he totally leaves out the reason why NASA "cooled" the baseline and his "analysis" appears to be only comparing 2 unlike graphs.  Additionally what about the point of models being an effective tool for plotting.  It's not like you *need* temp data from every square kilometer to be accurate in plotting trends.

Or, we can discuss the Sat temp measurements.   You could write War and Peace x5 picking apart all the data manipulation that NASA/NOAA does on temps.

There's a 10's of Kilmeters not mapped, and then there's 1000's.   Not to mention huge swaths of Russia/Former Soviet Union where the weather stations don't work anymore.

Okay where is a webpage that discusses how the data was manipulated rather than pointing out accusations.

You can't read?

gifs that show two histograms are not evidence of shifting data, especially when NASA/NOAA talk about the need to shift their outcomes as better interpretations of the information have been worked. nothing posted there disputes the theory, their method, or their outcomes.  "Big Science" has been very clear why things have changed.  It's called the scientific method, not a conspiracy.

[The Big Train]

Don't worry, some kind of pestilence or disaster will trim the population back soon enough.

that's what i always say!

I'd say this is a little more worrisome than some ice melting

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34857015

[renocat]

Hey Ozone AL, it's freezing here and messing up plans.  Global warming happens each year you moron - summer.  Take your polar bears and jam them up your enviroboogeyman butt.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Ok, I guess we can add "honeybee extinction" to the scrap heap of bullshit envirowhacko claims. There should be some room over there between "looming ice age," "vanishing ozone layer," and "peak oil." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/

Which will be the next to fall? I'm guessing ocean acidification.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Ok, I guess we can add "honeybee extinction" to the scrap heap of bullshit envirowhacko claims. There should be some room over there between "looming ice age," "vanishing ozone layer," and "peak oil." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/

Which will be the next to fall? I'm guessing ocean acidification.

Good job, beekeepers. It's always great to see a story where human activity actually made a positive difference.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

A liberal and former warming alarmist does the research and reconsiders his position. This essay takes about a half hour to read. Here's the intro.

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace#.k14v7c2go

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled
— David Siegel

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

1 Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.

2 Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.

3 There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.

4 New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.

5 CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.

6 There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

7 Sea level will probably continue to rise?—?not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.

8 The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.

9 No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.

10 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking?—?or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey.

...

[ednksu]

A liberal and former warming alarmist does the research and reconsiders his position. This essay takes about a half hour to read. Here's the intro.

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace#.k14v7c2go

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled
— David Siegel

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

1 Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.

2 Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.

3 There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.

4 New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.

5 CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.

6 There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

7 Sea level will probably continue to rise?—?not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.

8 The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.

9 No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.

10 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking?—?or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey.

...

Honesty, you don't have it

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/10/29/climate-change-is-real-and-important-david-siegel/
https://medium.com/@miriamob/climate-change-is-real-and-important-646b663adcf#.7szyni5qj

[sonofdaxjones]

Surprised you haven't jetted over to Paris to take part in the annual (sometimes bi-annual) last chance to save the world event EDN.

[michigancat]

Is David Siegel a scientist or something?

[sonofdaxjones]

He makes good points, but they're pretty much captain obvious points to anyone who pays attention.

But with Western Gov't subsidization of "green" energy and climate research on a rocket ship ride to $1 trillion plus a year, who wouldn't want to hop on the gravy train?

[sonofdaxjones]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/30/pause-buster-sst-data-has-noaa-adjusted-away-a-relationship-between-nmat-and-sst-that-the-consensus-of-cmip5-climate-models-indicate-should-exist/

[Ptolemy]

If we are going to solve this perceived by some problem, let's start with this...

How does one go about measuring the single temperature of an entire planet?

Does someone have a very large rectal thermometer?

[star seed 7]

Ptolemy with the real science #stumper

[Tobias]

just like how we measure sea levels - head to la jolla with a big ass yardstick

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Honesty, you don't have it

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/10/29/climate-change-is-real-and-important-david-siegel/

I would encourage you to read Siegal's full essay, and then the piece you linked from Greg Laden. Maybe actually apply some critical thinking to the issue, as Siegal did.

This is how Mr. Laden starts his "rebuttal":

A week or so ago, I got a couple of emails and tweets about a blog post on Medium.com, an internet thing of which I had never heard. Apparently Medium.com is a big giant blog that anybody can go and blog their big giant thoughts on: like tumblr, but more bloggy.
 
Anyway, some dude by the name of David Siegel, Web Page Designer, posted a really long blog post about climate change on medium.com.
 
Have you ever been poking around on the Intertoobs, when somebody comes along and says, “Hey, I never really thought about global warming/vaccination/evolution before, but suddenly and unexplainably I am now. And as I think about global warming/vaccination/evolution these innocent and valid questions arise and imma ask you about them.”
 
Then the conversation proceeds to go down hill. The individual was really an anti-vaxer, a creationist, or a climate change denier all along, but was just pretending to be a thoughtful person who never thought about this issue before and just has some innocent question.
 
But every single one of these questions is framed in terms of the anti or denial perspective, every “fact” noted and eventually adhered to is a discredited anti or denial meme, and even more amusingly, every statement made by this “innocent, curious” individual is the same exact statement made the last time a similar individual came along.
 
David Siegel is one of those individuals, only instead of showing up on a Facebook thread or in the comments section of a blog post, he went to medium.com where anybody can post their thoughts. He wrote a long and detailed post, the sort of effort one would normally be paid to write by an interested party or editor, that had many of the standard misrepresentations of science found in the denialist septic system. It is well done but essentially evil, because climate change truly is real and important. I do wonder what motivates a person like David Siegel to do something like this. He is clearly intelligent, and an intelligent person has to know when they are misrepresenting the science so badly, even if they don’t understand the science itself.

Now ask yourself, why is it that the proponents of warming alarmism resort so heavily to name calling? the "rebuttal" doesn't get much better from there.

[michigancat]

I thought this was a better rebuttal:

https://medium.com/@miriamob/climate-change-is-real-and-important-646b663adcf#.3xywvxlf5

I agree it's bad to call resort to name calling.

[ednksu]

I thought this was a better rebuttal:

https://medium.com/@miriamob/climate-change-is-real-and-important-646b663adcf#.3xywvxlf5

I agree it's bad to call resort to name calling.

thanks for reposting the stuff I posted 8 posts up.

[ednksu]

Honesty, you don't have it

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/10/29/climate-change-is-real-and-important-david-siegel/

I would encourage you to read Siegal's full essay, and then the piece you linked from Greg Laden. Maybe actually apply some critical thinking to the issue, as Siegal did.

This is how Mr. Laden starts his "rebuttal":

A week or so ago, I got a couple of emails and tweets about a blog post on Medium.com, an internet thing of which I had never heard. Apparently Medium.com is a big giant blog that anybody can go and blog their big giant thoughts on: like tumblr, but more bloggy.
 
Anyway, some dude by the name of David Siegel, Web Page Designer, posted a really long blog post about climate change on medium.com.
 
Have you ever been poking around on the Intertoobs, when somebody comes along and says, “Hey, I never really thought about global warming/vaccination/evolution before, but suddenly and unexplainably I am now. And as I think about global warming/vaccination/evolution these innocent and valid questions arise and imma ask you about them.”
 
Then the conversation proceeds to go down hill. The individual was really an anti-vaxer, a creationist, or a climate change denier all along, but was just pretending to be a thoughtful person who never thought about this issue before and just has some innocent question.
 
But every single one of these questions is framed in terms of the anti or denial perspective, every “fact” noted and eventually adhered to is a discredited anti or denial meme, and even more amusingly, every statement made by this “innocent, curious” individual is the same exact statement made the last time a similar individual came along.
 
David Siegel is one of those individuals, only instead of showing up on a Facebook thread or in the comments section of a blog post, he went to medium.com where anybody can post their thoughts. He wrote a long and detailed post, the sort of effort one would normally be paid to write by an interested party or editor, that had many of the standard misrepresentations of science found in the denialist septic system. It is well done but essentially evil, because climate change truly is real and important. I do wonder what motivates a person like David Siegel to do something like this. He is clearly intelligent, and an intelligent person has to know when they are misrepresenting the science so badly, even if they don’t understand the science itself.

Now ask yourself, why is it that the proponents of warming alarmism resort so heavily to name calling? the "rebuttal" doesn't get much better from there.

It's clear you decided not to read, and that's fine, but don't criticize others because of your failures.  The intro piece posted debunk's Dax claims that he was a AGW supporter and had a change of heart.  The second link dismantles his arguments.

[CNS]

He makes good points, but they're pretty much captain obvious points to anyone who pays attention.

But with Western Gov't subsidization of "green" energy and climate research on a rocket ship ride to $1 trillion plus a year, who wouldn't want to hop on the gravy train?

To what tune does the govt subsidize oil?  How about farming?  Are we all being fooled by big oil and big Ag?  Is the science even in yet?