IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 72,574
How Global Warming Really Works
- Thread starter Frisco_Slug_Esq
- Start date
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,467
adrina
Heretic
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2017
- Posts
- 21,328
Comshaw
VAGITARIAN
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2000
- Posts
- 11,346
Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawe
"...But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)
Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results..."
"...The review serves as an answer to the charge that the minority view on climate change has been consistently suppressed, wrote Hayhoe. “It’s a lot easier for someone to claim they’ve been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can’t find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology… They weren’t suppressed. They’re out there, where anyone can find them.” Indeed, the review raises the question of how these papers came to be published in the first place, when they used flawed methodology, which the rigorous peer-review process is designed to weed out..."
https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/
Comshaw
"...But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)
Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results..."
"...The review serves as an answer to the charge that the minority view on climate change has been consistently suppressed, wrote Hayhoe. “It’s a lot easier for someone to claim they’ve been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can’t find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology… They weren’t suppressed. They’re out there, where anyone can find them.” Indeed, the review raises the question of how these papers came to be published in the first place, when they used flawed methodology, which the rigorous peer-review process is designed to weed out..."
https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/
Comshaw
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
You did zero research...
Freudian_Slit
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2017
- Posts
- 1,121
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Reasons For Optimism About Climate Hysteria
by Francis Menton
("The Manhattan Contrarian")
...Germany caved to environmentalists in deciding to eliminate nuclear power after the 2011 tsunami at Fukushima in Japan. Nuclear power emits no CO2. Wind and solar don't work, at least much of the time. So, what's left? Coal! From Bloomberg News, September 21, "How Merkel’s Green Energy Policy Has Fueled Demand for Coal..."
...Can anybody in Germany do basic arithmetic? Apparently not...
...Germany's stated goals of emissions reductions are just fantasies. They will not be achieved, but meanwhile the prices that their people pay for electricity and gasoline and heating oil will soar. (Germany's residential electricity prices are already about triple the U.S. average.) Same for California, and New York, and anybody else who tries a comparable strategy. As of now, you aren't reading much about the magnitude of the disaster, but it is truly a disaster. The story can't be suppressed forever...
...Can anybody in Germany do basic arithmetic? Apparently not...
...Germany's stated goals of emissions reductions are just fantasies. They will not be achieved, but meanwhile the prices that their people pay for electricity and gasoline and heating oil will soar. (Germany's residential electricity prices are already about triple the U.S. average.) Same for California, and New York, and anybody else who tries a comparable strategy. As of now, you aren't reading much about the magnitude of the disaster, but it is truly a disaster. The story can't be suppressed forever...
Leftists thrive on hysteria, and their lemmings scarf it up like there’s no tomorrow. It’s highly contagious.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxx.xxx.uk>
subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org
to: Thomas Crowley <thomas.crowley@xxx.xxx.uk>
Tom,
The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue of many more drifters providing measurements over the last 5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where we didn’t have much ship data in the past.
For much of the S[outhern] H[emisphere] between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.
Cheers
Phil
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
What Your Moral Superiors Are Up To
...So -- let the poor freeze in the dark. Doesn't that make you feel really morally superior?
-Francis Menton
"The Manhattan Contrarian"
"The Manhattan Contrarian"
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/10/12/what-your-moral-superiors-are-up-to
AngusBridie
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2017
- Posts
- 1,572
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
What's the correct temperature ?
Durable Original Measurement Uncertainty
by Kip Hansen
...Temperatures, in the USA, are reported and recorded in whole degrees Fahrenheit. (Don’t ask why we don’t use the scientific standard. I don’t know). These whole Fahrenheit degree records are then machine converted into Celsius (centigrade) degrees to one decimal place, such as 15.6 °C.
This means that each and every temperature between, for example, 72.5 and 71.5 °F is recorded as 72 °F. (In practice, one or the other of the precisely .5 readings is excluded and the other rounded up or down). Thus an official report for the temperature at the Battery, NY at 12 noon of “72 °F” means, in the real world, that the temperature, by measurement, was found to lie in the range of 71.5 °F and 72.5 °F — in other words, the recorded figure represents a range 1 degree F wide.
In scientific literature, we might see this in the notation: 72 +/- 0.5 °F. This then is often misunderstood to be some sort of “confidence interval”, “error bar”, or standard deviation.
It is none of those things in this specific example of temperature measurements. It is simply a form of shorthand for the actual measurement procedure which is to represent each 1 degree range of temperature as a single integer — when the real world meaning is “some temperature in the range of 0.5 degrees above or below the integer reported”. Any difference of the actual temperature, above or below the reported integer is not an error. These deviations are not “random errors” and are not “normally distributed”...
Link
This means that each and every temperature between, for example, 72.5 and 71.5 °F is recorded as 72 °F. (In practice, one or the other of the precisely .5 readings is excluded and the other rounded up or down). Thus an official report for the temperature at the Battery, NY at 12 noon of “72 °F” means, in the real world, that the temperature, by measurement, was found to lie in the range of 71.5 °F and 72.5 °F — in other words, the recorded figure represents a range 1 degree F wide.
In scientific literature, we might see this in the notation: 72 +/- 0.5 °F. This then is often misunderstood to be some sort of “confidence interval”, “error bar”, or standard deviation.
It is none of those things in this specific example of temperature measurements. It is simply a form of shorthand for the actual measurement procedure which is to represent each 1 degree range of temperature as a single integer — when the real world meaning is “some temperature in the range of 0.5 degrees above or below the integer reported”. Any difference of the actual temperature, above or below the reported integer is not an error. These deviations are not “random errors” and are not “normally distributed”...
Link
DMBFFF
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2017
- Posts
- 3,370
Global Warming
The Origin and Nature of the
Alleged Scientific Consensus
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1992/4/v15n2-9.pdf
Over 25 years ago.
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,449
What's the correct temperature ?
Durable Original Measurement Uncertainty
by Kip Hansen
...Temperatures, in the USA, are reported and recorded in whole degrees Fahrenheit. (Don’t ask why we don’t use the scientific standard. I don’t know). These whole Fahrenheit degree records are then machine converted into Celsius (centigrade) degrees to one decimal place, such as 15.6 °C.
This means that each and every temperature between, for example, 72.5 and 71.5 °F is recorded as 72 °F. (In practice, one or the other of the precisely .5 readings is excluded and the other rounded up or down). Thus an official report for the temperature at the Battery, NY at 12 noon of “72 °F” means, in the real world, that the temperature, by measurement, was found to lie in the range of 71.5 °F and 72.5 °F — in other words, the recorded figure represents a range 1 degree F wide.
In scientific literature, we might see this in the notation: 72 +/- 0.5 °F. This then is often misunderstood to be some sort of “confidence interval”, “error bar”, or standard deviation.
It is none of those things in this specific example of temperature measurements. It is simply a form of shorthand for the actual measurement procedure which is to represent each 1 degree range of temperature as a single integer — when the real world meaning is “some temperature in the range of 0.5 degrees above or below the integer reported”. Any difference of the actual temperature, above or below the reported integer is not an error. These deviations are not “random errors” and are not “normally distributed”...
Link
Watts is shit.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Watts is shit.
Well, then. You should have no difficulty at all in refudiatng the points that he is making.
Of course, you're not going to be able to go to your handy-dandy cheat sheet that you use every time the subject comes up.
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,449
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
No it isn't. They are simply scales to place your measurement on. Any Fahrenheit measurement can be converted to Celsius and vice versa. The limitation is accuracy of the instrument itself not whether the instrument is graduated in Celsius or Fahrenheit. Most offer both readings.
It's an easy mistake to make if your scientific knowledge base is insufficient to pass a 7th grade science quiz.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
The one that you can't refer to now and will now have to use your own big boy schmottguy words to articulate why it is, in this particular instance, that Watts is wrong.
Unless of course you're afraid of losing face.
Bawk, bawk.
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,449
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Bawk, bawk.
In other words, without Rob's go-to cheat sheet on climate fraud, you can't articulate why you think Watt's wrong.
You can't be on the forum enough to have fingertip access to all of LitHistory and not be of well aware of all of Rob's canned responses. Everyone on the board knows all of Rob's canned responses. That's how he got busted by Yossi giving one of his canned responses using a sock-puppet.
So again, I axe you:
Watt's wrong?
Why?
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,449
You take this shit too seriously, Queef. Go outside and get some air.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
You take this shit too seriously, Queef. Go outside and get some air.
In other words you've pored over the statement by Watts, who you said was shit, and you can't find anything wrong with it and don't want to lose face by attempting to refudiate it. Got it.
Don't even want to take a week swing at it? Maybe say something like well he's technically correct but that's inconsequential or doesn't have enough of an impact of matter and why?
Come on I've given you the broad strokes. Practically given you an outline. Get in there and do some work for a change instead of just your usual plagiarism without attribution.
You were that kid that turned in science reports by rewriting each individual sentence from the encyclopedia weren't you?
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,449
