The Greatest Scientic Fraud of All Time

[trysail]

Atmospheric CO2 v. Global temperature




That's one helluva correlation. What do you think the correlation coefficient is on this baby? 0.01 ? 0.05?


https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1870/30784366758_4e8f574604_o.gif


​

 

[phrodeau]

Atmospheric CO2 v. Global temperature




That's one helluva correlation. What do you think the correlation coefficient is on this baby? 0.01 ? 0.05?


https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1870/30784366758_4e8f574604_o.gif


​

Where did you get your data?

Oh, the same place.

 

[von_Bismarck]

I'm usually not able to find trysail's graphs in any sort of scientific publication, this graph included. I wonder why that is?

 

[trysail]

https://co2islife.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/rss.png?w=840


For the scientifically literate, the numerate and the informed, no comment is needed.

For the unscientific, the gullible, the credulous and the uninformed, any comment is a waste of time.


​

 

[Rightguide]

I'm usually not able to find trysail's graphs in any sort of scientific publication, this graph included. I wonder why that is?

In regard to the graph posted in #851 there is a reference to a website and once there a bibliography can be found that may point you in the right direction.

 

[von_Bismarck]

https://co2islife.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/rss.png?w=840


For the scientifically literate, the numerate and the informed, no comment is needed.

For the unscientific, the gullible, the credulous and the uninformed, any comment is a waste of time.


​

In other words, trysail has no intention of justifying his bullshit.

 

[von_Bismarck]

In regard to the graph posted in #851 there is a reference to a website and once there a bibliography can be found that may point you in the right direction.

Uh huh. Following the links from "Climate4you" takes me nowhere to their data or any sort of duplication of their graph. Amusingly, however, one of their links did take me directly to this image.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/421974/487107/Global+Temperature/e059a98a-2667-45b9-9cec-87ff7379c3a0?t=1518796039868

 

[trysail]

I was not always a lukewarmer. When I first started writing about the threat of global warming more than 26 years ago, as science editor of The Economist, I thought it was a genuinely dangerous threat. Like, for instance, Margaret Thatcher, I accepted the predictions being made at the time that we would see warming of a third or a half a degree (Centigrade) a decade, perhaps more, and that this would have devastating consequences.

Gradually, however, I changed my mind. The failure of the atmosphere to warm anywhere near as rapidly as predicted was a big reason: there has been less than half a degree of global warming in four decades — and it has slowed down, not speeded up. Increases in malaria, refugees, heatwaves, storms, droughts and floods have not materialised to anything like the predicted extent, if at all. Sea level has risen but at a very slow rate — about a foot per century.

Also, I soon realised that all the mathematical models predicting rapid warming assume big amplifying feedbacks in the atmosphere, mainly from water vapour; carbon dioxide is merely the primer, responsible for about a third of the predicted warming. When this penny dropped, so did my confidence in predictions of future alarm: the amplifiers are highly uncertain.

Another thing that gave me pause was that I went back and looked at the history of past predictions of ecological apocalypse from my youth – population explosion, oil exhaustion, elephant extinction, rainforest loss, acid rain, the ozone layer, desertification, nuclear winter, the running out of resources, pandemics, falling sperm counts, cancerous pesticide pollution and so forth. There was a consistent pattern of exaggeration, followed by damp squibs: in not a single case was the problem as bad as had been widely predicted by leading scientists. That does not make every new prediction of apocalypse necessarily wrong, of course, but it should encourage scepticism.

-Matt Ridley, Ph.D.
​

​

 

[Luk]

I was not always a lukewarmer. When I first started writing about the threat of global warming more than 26 years ago, as science editor of The Economist, I thought it was a genuinely dangerous threat. Like, for instance, Margaret Thatcher, I accepted the predictions being made at the time that we would see warming of a third or a half a degree (Centigrade) a decade, perhaps more, and that this would have devastating consequences.

Gradually, however, I changed my mind. The failure of the atmosphere to warm anywhere near as rapidly as predicted was a big reason: there has been less than half a degree of global warming in four decades — and it has slowed down, not speeded up. Increases in malaria, refugees, heatwaves, storms, droughts and floods have not materialised to anything like the predicted extent, if at all. Sea level has risen but at a very slow rate — about a foot per century.

Also, I soon realised that all the mathematical models predicting rapid warming assume big amplifying feedbacks in the atmosphere, mainly from water vapour; carbon dioxide is merely the primer, responsible for about a third of the predicted warming. When this penny dropped, so did my confidence in predictions of future alarm: the amplifiers are highly uncertain.

Another thing that gave me pause was that I went back and looked at the history of past predictions of ecological apocalypse from my youth – population explosion, oil exhaustion, elephant extinction, rainforest loss, acid rain, the ozone layer, desertification, nuclear winter, the running out of resources, pandemics, falling sperm counts, cancerous pesticide pollution and so forth. There was a consistent pattern of exaggeration, followed by damp squibs: in not a single case was the problem as bad as had been widely predicted by leading scientists. That does not make every new prediction of apocalypse necessarily wrong, of course, but it should encourage scepticism.

-Matt Ridley, Ph.D.
​

​

Say what?

 

[von_Bismarck]

What tryfail doesn't realize is that satellite temperature data have come into agreement with models and with surface temperature data over the past couple decades. Womp womp.

 

[trysail]

"...The troposphere has not warmed quite as fast as most climate models predict..."

-Remote Sensing Services​

​

"...there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature datasets..."

-Carl Mears, Ph.D.
Remote Sensing Services​

​

​

http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globev4.png

Global (70S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The black line is the time series for the RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution


​

 

[trysail]

For the scientifically literate, the numerate and the informed, no comment is needed.

For the unscientific, the gullible, the credulous and the uninformed, any comment is a waste of time.



http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2018_v6-550x317.jpg


​

 

[colddiesel]

Trysail gets his graphs from the reports of Carbon Fuel producing companies. He also holds and has held stock in such companies. I once invited him to declare his conflicts of interest - he declined.

For the sake of completion I will own up to my own former private company earning at least $5 Million from oil and coal companies in the last decade before retirement. Wonder why Trysail won't do the same.

 

[trysail]

Trysail gets his graphs from the reports of Carbon Fuel producing companies. He also holds and has held stock in such companies. I once invited him to declare his conflicts of interest - he declined.

For the sake of completion I will own up to my own former private company earning at least $5 Million from oil and coal companies in the last decade before retirement. Wonder why Trysail won't do the same.

First and foremost, you have posted an ad hominem attack rather than addressing the facts and issues.

Second, you know absolutely nothing about me— and I intend to keep it that way. If you think I'm going to put personal and private information on the internet, you're smoking something. It's none of your damn business and the bumbling attempt at a personal attack is a clear indicator of desperation.

Now, let's count the errors and inaccuracies in your fact-free assertion:

1
2
3.​

​

 

[trysail]

For the scientifically literate, the numerate and the informed, no comment is needed.

For the unscientific, the gullible, the credulous and the uninformed, any comment is a waste of time.



http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2018_v6-550x317.jpg


​

 

[von_Bismarck]

For the scientifically literate, the numerate and the informed, no comment is needed.

For the unscientific, the gullible, the credulous and the uninformed, any comment is a waste of time.



http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2018_v6-550x317.jpg


​

^ Still has no intention of backing up his bullshit.

 

[colddiesel]

First and foremost, you have posted an ad hominem attack rather than addressing the facts and issues.

Second, you know absolutely nothing about me— and I intend to keep it that way. If you think I'm going to put personal and private information on the internet, you're smoking something. It's none of your damn business and the bumbling attempt at a personal attack is a clear indicator of desperation.

​

Of course it was an ad hominem attack - and I fully intended it to be. In my book you are a sniveling coward who hasn't got the guts or intellect to put up his own argument but hides behind the efforts of others in trying to gain approval.

You constantly post stuff without the original source and seem totally incapable or afraid of making your own arguments. I accused you of having a financial interest in the argument either deriving income from carbon fuel companies directly or indirectly and you hide behind "personal and private" - what a load of bollocks.

I spent 30 years successfully placing people at senior levels in Industry and believe me I met plenty of third rate wankers like you. You're the guy who kisses up and kicks down and parrots the boss to seek approval. You give your inadequacies away with every post you put up, and you come across as a pompous, smug ass.

See if you can find someone (an original source perhaps ) who disagrees with me. ​

 

[phrodeau]

For the scientifically literate, the numerate and the informed, no comment is needed.

For the unscientific, the gullible, the credulous and the uninformed, any comment is a waste of time.



http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2018_v6-550x317.jpg


​

Why does the running, centered 13-month average dip below the zero line in 2008? It didn't used to.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2013_v5.6.png

Please provide a detailed explanation.

 

[trysail]

Of course it was an ad hominem attack - and I fully intended it to be. In my book you are a sniveling coward who hasn't got the guts or intellect to put up his own argument but hides behind the efforts of others in trying to gain approval.

You constantly post stuff without the original source and seem totally incapable or afraid of making your own arguments. I accused you of having a financial interest in the argument either deriving income from carbon fuel companies directly or indirectly and you hide behind "personal and private" - what a load of bollocks.

I spent 30 years successfully placing people at senior levels in Industry and believe me I met plenty of third rate wankers like you. You're the guy who kisses up and kicks down and parrots the boss to seek approval. You give your inadequacies away with every post you put up, and you come across as a pompous, smug ass.

See if you can find someone (an original source perhaps ) who disagrees with me.

You got the courtesy of a response to your first ad hominem attack.

With your refusal to stick to facts and the issue, you have forfeited the privilege of responses in the future.

I like having your rants, porky pies, and insults on display; readers can thereby form an accurate picture of the mind behind them.



​

 

[phrodeau]

You got the courtesy of a response to your first ad hominem attack.

With your refusal to stick to facts and the issue, you have forfeited the privilege of responses in the future.

I like having your rants, porky pies, and insults on display; readers can thereby form an accurate picture of the mind behind them.



​

You're the one posting trash in this thread.

 

[von_Bismarck]

I'd still like to know why I can't find trysail's graphs in a peer-reviewed journal.

You got the courtesy of a response to your first ad hominem attack.

With your refusal to stick to facts and the issue, you have forfeited the privilege of responses in the future.

I like having your rants, porky pies, and insults on display; readers can thereby form an accurate picture of the mind behind them.



​

You say that like you haven't committed your own ad hominem attacks many times over.

 

[trysail]

The historic global temperature record (prior to the advent of satellite-based measurement and recordation in 1979) is utterly worthless.


Audit Of The HadCrut4 Global Temperature Dataset by John McLean, Ph.D.

https://i2.wp.com/robert-boyle-publishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/McLean-HadCRUT4_small_image.jpg​

SUMMARY:
This report makes more than 70 findings about areas of concern with the HadCRUT4 temperature dataset. These cover the entire process from the measurement of temperatures to the derivation of HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomalies. They relate to the inclusion of data that is obviously in error, inappropriate procedures, poor data processing and significant assumptions about a range of matters including basing conclusions on very little data.

Most of the findings increase the uncertainty in the data and therefore increase the error margin. One however shows that a common but flawed method of data adjustment creates a false warming trend from the adjustments alone. Another finding points out that when stations were closed rather than relocated any distortion in the data remains in the record. Errors are also identified in sea surface temperatures, including some created by a member of the team responsible for that data.

Ultimately it is argued that the flawed data casts doubt on the credibility of IPCC reports that rely on HadCRUT4 data (or earlier versions of the dataset). Due diligence of these matters by governments twenty or more years ago might have avoided poorly-justified policies on climate and energy.



DATA USED:
As downloaded from CRU and Hadley Centre on 26 Jan 2018


https://robert-boyle-publishing.com...crut4-global-temperature-dataset-mclean-2018/


​

​

 

[von_Bismarck]

John McLean.

 

[trysail]

The estimable Dr. Judith A. Curry's take:

1.5 Degrees

...Apart from warmer temperatures, what evidence is there of potential catastrophes? An observed increase in extreme weather events is not well justified, if you correctly account for the influence of multi-decadal ocean oscillations. So, what is the possible worst cast impact for 1.5 or 2.0 C warming on the timescale of the 21st century?

• collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, possibly resulting in up to 2.5 m sea level rise as per the NOAA (2017) report (actually, the IPCC does not even make this case, they are predicting SLR of 1-2 feet). This extreme scenario, which would maybe justify all this, is regarded as extremely unlikely, and we are not presently on such a trajectory. In any event, if the WAIS collapses it is more likely to be due to the geothermal heat flux and volcanoes beneath the ice sheet. Recent research shows portions of the WAIS rising at a rate of 41 mm/yr, acting to protect the WAIS from collapse. MASSIVELY uncertain.
• species extinction. After alarming conclusions in AR4, the AR5 backtracked, and this new Report backtracks even further. What about the ocean – acidification and declining oxygen? Our understanding is in its infancy, but this needs to be looked at more.
​

IMO, even with erroneous attribution of extreme weather/climate events and projections using climate models that are running too hot and not fit for purpose of projecting 21st century climate change, the IPCC still has not made a strong case for this massive investment to prevent 1.5C warming.

​

more (and don't forget to read the comments)...

​

 

[trysail]

State of Fear— Author's Message

By Michael Crichton, M.D.

• We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it.
• In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.
• Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause.
• We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year cold spell known as the “Little Ice Age.”
• Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.
• Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.
• Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess—the only thing anyone is doing, really—I would guess the increase will be 0.812436 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else’s. (We can’t “assess” the future, nor can we “predict” it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess.)...
• The “precautionary principle,” properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh...

more...




​