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

[sys]

yeah, i agree with chingon.

[ednksu]

The problem you have Whack-A-Doodle is that you're just hyperactive knee jerk reactionary.   You immediately dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with your screeds as liars.

The fact that the warmist alarmist community protests so much when anyone dares question them, pretty much tells anyone with a brain (that would exclude you) all they need to know.    For example there's a lot of very smart people who very good with numbers who are calling out the manipulation of data that is taking place to create a false narrative, and the the people behind the manipulation don't like it, because they're in the game of self perpetuation.

I've asked for real scientific data that disproves their's.  The best you've managed are shifting histograms which compare the shift in temp datas which are readily acknowledged as updated info. Find me real credible sources with real credible problems with data sets.

I think this is stupid. Bad science does not have to be disproved with good science. Bad science is just bad science.


Gonna win 'em all!

I guess well have to judge the 97% on a new metric than.....

Also this is the same issue that Dax or KSUW have in this debate. You can't just fiat the science you disagree with as being "bad."  You have to deconstruct their system and point out its flaws.  When they update their system that isn't an example of the science being bad, its actually an example of it being "good" science.  Their outcomes, metrics, or measurements might be bad, but that isn't necessarily an indictment of their methodology/science.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

How difficult is it to read the numbers on a thermometer and put those into your model? How do you see the numbers and go "that can't be right, it must have been 5 degrees hotter. let's adjust all of the readings by 5 degrees." BOOM hottest year on record!

[Ptolemy]

cancer clusters?
being able to set water on fire?

Water on fire was a hoax...

http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/07/fracking-victim-sued-defamation-prove-water-flammable/

...and we do not know what causes cancer.

[sonofdaxjones]

Their are people have monitored with great zeal how the past was systematically made cooler by NOAA and NASA. 

This isn't about better science.   This is about manipulation.  No WhackaDoodle ProgLib screed is going to change that reality.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Also, the 97% meme is well established bullshit.

I really think Edna's account has been hacked, because this level of dopey can't be real

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Also, the 97% meme is well established bullshit.

There has to be a bunch of qualifiers to that number that have been long forgotten.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

How difficult is it to read the numbers on a thermometer and put those into your model? How do you see the numbers and go "that can't be right, it must have been 5 degrees hotter. let's adjust all of the readings by 5 degrees." BOOM hottest year on record!

They're mainly doing it reverse, going back several decades and adjusting those temps down, which makes the recent years look warmer by comparison.

[Rage Against the McKee]

How difficult is it to read the numbers on a thermometer and put those into your model? How do you see the numbers and go "that can't be right, it must have been 5 degrees hotter. let's adjust all of the readings by 5 degrees." BOOM hottest year on record!

They're mainly doing it reverse, going back several decades and adjusting those temps down, which makes the recent years look warmer by comparison.

Are the temps getting adjusted measured or interpolated?

[sonofdaxjones]

People are asking for the data they're using to make these adjustments via FOIA, and getting stonewalled (as per usual), there's also internal whistle blowers coming forward saying the latest report was rushed and not correct.

They simply don't want third parties analyzing their data . . . this has been a regular occurrence with the government funded warmist alarmist politicized propagandist scientists.   They know as long as they keep saying the earth is getting warmer, the funding is going to continue rolling in.

[Ptolemy]

Throughout human history, major scientific advancements have always been embraced by mankind regardless of political affiliation. For example, when the light bulb replaced candles, there wasn't one political party screaming that we had to stay with candles or all mankind would perish. Same with the car replacing the horse and cell phones replacing landlines more recently. Due to the innovation, EVERYBODY ran toward the light to enjoy the advance in technology.

On global warming, there is no innovation.  The political left theorizes that carbon dioxide is the control knob of the planet's atmospheric temperature and their solution is to essentially tax air - carbon use to be more specific, and force us back into inefficient energy sources - wind and solar and away from fossil fuels.

The political right says there is no problem, the environment is no different than it has been for man's 100+ years of new age productivity (against 4.5 billion years of earth's age - the arrogance!) and  any efforts to hold man's innovation and progress back is wasted effort in improving our lives in meaningful ways during our short time we all spend on this orb.

Seems pretty simple what's going on when you think about it.

[star seed 7]

The planet is fine, the people are mumped

[sys]

Throughout human history, major scientific advancements have always been embraced by mankind regardless of political affiliation. For example, when the light bulb replaced candles, there wasn't one political party screaming that we had to stay with candles or all mankind would perish. Same with the car replacing the horse and cell phones replacing landlines more recently. Due to the innovation, EVERYBODY ran toward the light to enjoy the advance in technology.

On global warming, there is no innovation.  The political left theorizes that carbon dioxide is the control knob of the planet's atmospheric temperature and their solution is to essentially tax air - carbon use to be more specific, and force us back into inefficient energy sources - wind and solar and away from fossil fuels.

The political right says there is no problem, the environment is no different than it has been for man's 100+ years of new age productivity (against 4.5 billion years of earth's age - the arrogance!) and  any efforts to hold man's innovation and progress back is wasted effort in improving our lives in meaningful ways during our short time we all spend on this orb.

Seems pretty simple what's going on when you think about it.

it's just like with the national debt.  if it ever becomes a problem, necessity will spawn the needed invention.  it's simply foolish to worry about. it.

[Ptolemy]

it's just like with the national debt.  if it ever becomes a problem, necessity will spawn the needed invention.  it's simply foolish to worry about. it.

Debt (out of control entitlement spending with no foreseeable means for funding it) is not an innovation.

[sys]

of course not.  it's as old as money itself.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The lunatic in charge of climate policy at the UN said that a climate compact is essential to ending poverty, among other things.

What nonsensical piece of rhetoric is this a reference to? It makes no sense on its face.

[ednksu]

cancer clusters?
being able to set water on fire?

Water on fire was a hoax...

http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/07/fracking-victim-sued-defamation-prove-water-flammable/

...and we do not know what causes cancer.

you might actually be disabled.

[ednksu]

Throughout human history, major scientific advancements have always been embraced by mankind regardless of political affiliation. For example, when the light bulb replaced candles, there wasn't one political party screaming that we had to stay with candles or all mankind would perish. Same with the car replacing the horse and cell phones replacing landlines more recently. Due to the innovation, EVERYBODY ran toward the light to enjoy the advance in technology.

On global warming, there is no innovation.  The political left theorizes that carbon dioxide is the control knob of the planet's atmospheric temperature and their solution is to essentially tax air - carbon use to be more specific, and force us back into inefficient energy sources - wind and solar and away from fossil fuels.

The political right says there is no problem, the environment is no different than it has been for man's 100+ years of new age productivity (against 4.5 billion years of earth's age - the arrogance!) and  any efforts to hold man's innovation and progress back is wasted effort in improving our lives in meaningful ways during our short time we all spend on this orb.

Seems pretty simple what's going on when you think about it.

stopped reading when you pegged it only at C02

[ednksu]

How difficult is it to read the numbers on a thermometer and put those into your model? How do you see the numbers and go "that can't be right, it must have been 5 degrees hotter. let's adjust all of the readings by 5 degrees." BOOM hottest year on record!

They're mainly doing it reverse, going back several decades and adjusting those temps down, which makes the recent years look warmer by comparison.

yeah, it's called science.  please read any of the scholarly articles where they go on for pages on how they are adjusting, what their measurement techniques actually are, and why it matters for the process.

Their are people have monitored with great zeal how the past was systematically made cooler by NOAA and NASA. 

This isn't about better science.   This is about manipulation.  No WhackaDoodle ProgLib screed is going to change that reality.

Sorry but you have yet to provide ANY scientific article on how these shifts are bad science.  The best you have is a trash conspiracy theory website that shows altering histogram gifs as "proof". 

[sonofdaxjones]

Please point me to official statements about why these adjustments are scientifically valid.   I'm sure they'll be a rebuttal to each one of them.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

How difficult is it to read the numbers on a thermometer and put those into your model? How do you see the numbers and go "that can't be right, it must have been 5 degrees hotter. let's adjust all of the readings by 5 degrees." BOOM hottest year on record!

They're mainly doing it reverse, going back several decades and adjusting those temps down, which makes the recent years look warmer by comparison.

yeah, it's called science.  please read any of the scholarly articles where they go on for pages on how they are adjusting, what their measurement techniques actually are, and why it matters for the process.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

The lunatic in charge of climate policy at the UN said that a climate compact is essential to ending poverty, among other things.

What nonsensical piece of rhetoric is this a reference to? It makes no sense on its face.

Just additional proof it's about increasing taxes more than increasing temperatures.

[Ptolemy]

The lunatic in charge of climate policy at the UN said that a climate compact is essential to ending poverty, among other things.

What nonsensical piece of rhetoric is this a reference to? It makes no sense on its face.

TRANSLATION: "We can't justify wealth redistribution on its face alone - not enough public support - but we can if we fool people into thinking it's to  save the planet."

[star seed 7]

The lunatic in charge of climate policy at the UN said that a climate compact is essential to ending poverty, among other things.

What nonsensical piece of rhetoric is this a reference to? It makes no sense on its face.

TRANSLATION: "We can't justify wealth redistribution on its face alone - not enough public support - but we can if we fool people into thinking it's to  save the planet."

 

[sonofdaxjones]

Lol at CPLJB LOL