Global Warming: Massaging the Data per Desired Results?

[Philip]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclu ... mate-data/

Modeling, algorithms, inserting data - how reliable are the present techniques?

[B. W.]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclu ... mate-data/

Modeling, algorithms, inserting data - how reliable are the present techniques?

About as reliable as the 2016 US Election opinion poles...
-
-
-

[Hortator]

I can't tell you all how entrenched global climate change is in the minds of my fellow millennials. Like, good people too. They are as libertarian as a Montana man with an underground fallout shelter. But they have been raised since birth to not just believe, but have the confidence of verified truth, that the planet is actively dying.

[melanie]

yeah, scientists have no idea what they are talking about.
Leading, world renowned scientists with degrees and masters in the field across the globe with studies and data that has been deemed irrefutable by the general consensus by the leading minds in the field are pulling ya leg.
The bullcrap and propaganda that circulates the conservative Christian circles in regards to this makes the flat earthers some what credible
You know they have data too......
This topic is hands down the number 1 thing that makes me want to distance myself from some Christians.
That's harsh and I don't mean it personally but for goodness sake we are smarter than that.
Proper investigation, not from a politically or religiously motivated agenda but from a purely scientific mindset leaves one without question.

[melanie]

I've just read my post and like usual I cringe a bit because I feel I come across like a sledgehammer
But I'm really much more cuddly lol
Phil I think you are great, and I respect your opinion and I admire you as a fellow Christian, but we disagree a lot and that's okay. In this regard I think you are totally off the mark.
I'm really passionate about this topic! I've invested countless hours of research and I'm steadfast in my opinion but I welcome the debate and your input

[Stu]

Don't believe the 97% consensus on climate change either.......

Alleged “Consensus on Climate Change” Is Actually Only 75 Hand-Picked US Scientists

[melanie]

Don't believe the 97% consensus on climate change either.......

Alleged “Consensus on Climate Change” Is Actually Only 75 Hand-Picked US Scientists

Taken from a conservative webite 'the last great stand' and if you click on the link it has been removed from the site.
Credibility

[melanie]

Can I make a sweeping suggestion??
If anyone is interested in information. Creditable information, don't listen or cite politically motivated websites in regards to scientific findings.
Look to independent funded research.
Non biased....
Never trust a political or religious site. They are unscrupulous in representing thier own agenda from all sides.
Thank goodness impartiality still exists.
Be wise in research, look to creditable unbiased research

[Stu]

Don't believe the 97% consensus on climate change either.......

Alleged “Consensus on Climate Change” Is Actually Only 75 Hand-Picked US Scientists

Taken from a conservative webite 'the last great stand' and if you click on the link it has been removed from the site.
Credibility

Just google it, you will find other websites that say the same thing.

[Philip]

Melanie: Can I make a sweeping suggestion?? If anyone is interested in information. Creditable information, don't listen or cite politically motivated websites in regards to scientific findings. Look to independent funded research.
Non biased....

Um, don't you think that perhaps government-sponsored groups just might be a bit political???!!! LOL.

Mel: Never trust a political or religious site. They are unscrupulous in representing their own agenda from all sides.

I agree. But as for websites that publish papers - DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER! The REAL questions should be, do those actually writing such papers (being reported on) have the qualifications and can their findings and assertions be refuted with evidence? And don't extrapolate some supposed "consensus" to utilize as a supposed refutation of a specific assertion or noted inconsistency using verifiable data and methodologies.

So, Mel, instead of stereotyping people as being religious or political, let's examine what they have actually said, what their credentials are, and what evidence have they put forward. And you did none of that chiming in on this issue, per the paper I cited. The authors of this paper are not some biased website hacks or merely politically motivated, clueless people about the science surrounding this issue.

Look at the credentials of the Ph.Ds that wrote the study - pretty impressive guys:

Joseph S. D'Aleo, Ph.D, has been a professional meteorologist for over 30 years: First Director of Meteorology at the Weather Channel on cable TV; Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation; Senior Editor of “Dr. Dewpoint” for WSI’s Intellicast.com; Taught Meteorology at Lyndon State College in Vermont: Contributing author to the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC); Served as Chairman of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting; Is a member of the AMS Council; is a fellow of the AMS; and has been elected a Councilor for the AMS; A Certified Consulting Meteorologist; Has co-chaired national conferences for both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association; Is currently co chief Meteorologist at Weatherbell.com; Is also Executive Director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), an organization and website that bring together climate scientists to examine climate change; Is a policy expert at the Heartland Institute.

Craig D. Idso, Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University in 1998. His doctoral thesis was titled, Amplitude and phase changes in the seasonal atmospheric CO2 cycle in the Northern Hemisphere; Has published scientific journal, peer-reviewed articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations, the latter of which he investigated via a National Science Foundation grant as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. His main focus is on the environmental benefits of carbon dioxide. In addition, he has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University, and in Physical Geography at Mesa Community College and Chandler-Gilbert Community College; Is the former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy and a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute; Is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America.

Dr. James P. Wallace III Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

Oh, yeah, Mel - please refute what they wrote and assert with actual evidence. I'll patiently wait to see if you can.

Mel: In this regard I think you are totally off the mark.

Mel, I'm not sure what you refer to - as to my "being off the mark." I don't deny climate change. But I'm agnostic, for the moment, upon the causes and as to whether or not: We're merely or mostly just in a climatic cycle, whether the warming we've seen will continue, has subsided (per a cycle), or if it is man-induced, or is it the grave danger we've been led to believe (remember, many claims per the "unquestionable consensus" the Chicken Littles were screaming about 15 or 20 years ago have not come true), could we even change the impact, given the politics of individual countries financial and immediately considerations? I advocate continued research and monitoring, and cleaning up our environment.

But what I don't advocate, is forcing/taxing vast billions into some super-fund war chest run by international globalists - because A) I don't believe we definitely know what we're dealing with, B) I'm hugely suspicious of the potential wrong use and dangerous power of such a funded international group - that might well be just an enormous waste of money spent unfruitfully on the problem - IF it truly is a problem, and that can be addressed, C) I know that data HAS been manipulated and that so much is based upon very questionable computer modeling, D) And when people begin foaming at the mouth over reasonable questions and cautions, or over pointed out manipulations and politics - then I think they are on an agenda that fails to ask very important questions. Clean up our industries and air - these are absolutely good goals. If we are but in a natural and uncaused (by man) cycle, then there is no currently compelling info to prove that not to be the case. Correlations that seem connected are not necessarily so - particularly with the history of immense climate and temperature fluctuations/cycles of a 4.5 billion-year-old planet. Correlating data per the industrial revolution, beginning upon a serious level in somewhat less than a mere 200 years ago - which is such a small period of data that it really tells us nothing that may very well be any more than an actual correlation with a natural cycle of an ancient planet's climate history. Hate to tell you, but that is a fact! And those who point it out are not all ignorant Christians who view science only through the lens of politics.

Last things - for those who are convinced deniers of climate change - well, we've clearly seen significant changes in our climate - but how much, and for how long? For those denying that man hasn't contributed to climate change - we don't know that for a fact EITHER! It's entirely possible - but the questions are, to what "degree" (great pun, eh?) and is our contribution significant, dangerous, ongoing, or is it a cycle? Again, there's a big difference between a skeptic of what is claimed, and a denier, who asserts that a theorized thing is totally false and impossible. I'm a skeptic, but not a denier that the claims might possibly be true. I think that's a reasonable outlook.

[Philip]

Melanie - hope my long response wasn't inflammatory / reactionary!

[dinoman]

Might need to rethink. Not that we are not causing issues.. but it is NOT to the extend that they would have us believe...
Recent per reivewed by MIT, EPA, etc.. and why Trump needs to continue to keep out of the paris talks

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/r ... a_07142017

[abelcainsbrother]

It is manmade climate change that I object to.I mean going by science for billions of years the earth has went through ices ages,hot ages and in between ages and yet on its own so when scientists want to start blaming the progress of man and claiming it is man now causing global warming I don't believe man is causing it because man never did before effect the climate changes. Also if man-made climate change was real then they would be demanding China do more to curb pollution but yet it is directed towards America where we pollute alot less than China so they should be preaching to China to do more not America.China has had an advantage over America by producing cheaper products but polluting like a volcano and yet nobody preaches to them and they would ignore you.Also just because you don't believe in man-made climate change does not mean you want to pollute like China does,it just means that man is not effecting the climate changes we have that are normal cycles that the earth has gone through many of times.

[PaulSacramento]

Science is never, ever done by consensus.
Consensus is irrelevant to science.

Anyone that resorts to the "majority view" in science is NOT doing science, but politics.

For something to be scientific fact it must be:

Verifiable
Observable
Falsifiable
Predictable.

Current climate science has failed in all those regards, it needs to be fixed.
Massage data is what people resort to when the data doesn't meet THEIR DESIRED conclusions.
That is not science.

[Philip]

What people must ask are: HOW are various conclusions being reached - via what methodologies? WHAT data was used? What was excluded and why? What assumptions are being made by computer models that cannot be known? What algorithms are being used, and are they reliable? How reliable is the data, and does it cover enough time, is it extensive enough, to draw conclusions of a planet that is 4.5 billion years old, that has had many wild flunctuations in climate, and in which various data, is partial at best, AND most of it goes back only 150 years or so. There is a LOT of guesswork in utilizing today's tools to arrive at certainty over this issue. Those who think it is a slam dunk are ignoring the complexity and the tiny, woefully incomplete snapshot of a 4.5 billion year old earth's climate history. If your data is incorrectly used, or if it is incomplete, combined with questionable models or how the algorithms are applied, even tiny mistakes can produce wildly incorrect assumptions. And those pointing out these serious challenges are NOT all deniers who are only reading articles by such. Ah, but the ice core evidences - correlate with statistical warming since the industrial age. Whether those statistics are relevant to proving the claims, we still could not know of their relevance if the planet's natural cycles are merely what has driven any changes since the industrial revolution truly cranked up. Same deal if we suddenly begin to get much colder - "Aha! It's that dang man-caused climate change!" A plus B does not necessarily equal "Z" - no matter how many people claim so.