████████ Climastrology (a/k/a Climate $cience) ████████

[trysail]

████████ Climastrology (a/k/a Climate $cience) ████████

When mainstream print and broadcast media are taking the ravings of a hysterical and delusional 17-year old female seriously, you have proof that the media is no longer a reliable source of information on the topic.


When you have supposedly trustworthy "scientists" opposing the disclosure of the data employed in their putative "peer reviewed" papers, you may be certain the study results have not been properly reviewed, verified or reproduced.

Secret Science Under Attack— Part I

Secret Science Under Attack— Part II
by Kip Hansen

"...The E.P.A. issued a Press release the next day, 12 November 2019, titled “The New York Times’ Several Glaring Inaccuracies “That’s Fit To Print””, rebutting the Friedman story using the following language: (all segments are direct quotes and were bolded in the original press release)

“How the New York Times got it wrong:

…. This is completely false….

……which is completely false….

…. This is not true. ….

…. The story continues with more false information. ….

…. This is just wrong. ….

…. Science transparency does not weaken science, quite the contrary. ….

…. This is just bad reporting. It is completely misleading, and lacks the understanding of the rule making process. ….

…. This is completely false. ….

…. the reporter confuses the situation by using “raw data,” which is clarified in the supplemental. ….

…. This is not a new rule. ….”
​

How did the NY Times cover this press release? Did the NY Times print a correction to the Friedman article? No, it didn’t print a single word about it…not one mention … not even a little postscript added to the bottom of the original article. Despite the E.P.A.’s unusual official public statement intended to correct errors and mis-statements in the Friedman article, there has been no mention in the NY Times of the E.P.A. press release — not then, and not to date, two months later..."



​

https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/image6.png
​

​

 

[RoryN]

^^^^
Copying my thread title format.

How timely - there's a topic about this right now: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1516725

 

[trysail]

The New York Times' Several Glaring Inaccuracies "That's Fit To Print"

by The United States Environmental Protection Agency
11/12/19

WASHINGTON — Late yesterday, the New York Times published a story EPA to Limit Science Used to Write Public Health Rules, that has numerous errors and is based on leaked preliminary, draft documents that are not accurate and do not include the final text submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for interagency review.

On Friday, Nov. 8, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delivered to OMB a draft supplemental federal register notice (FRN) to clarify, modify and supplement certain provisions included in the 2018 proposed “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule. The 2018 proposed rule solicited comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. This supplemental FRN solicits comment only on the changes and additions to the proposed regulatory text discussed in this supplemental notice. The agency still intends to issue a final rule in 2020. This final rule will take into account the comments received in response to both the 2018 proposed rule and this supplemental FRN as well as those submitted by the Science Advisory Board.

EPA recognizes that when it develops significant regulations using public resources, including regulations for which the public is likely to bear the cost of compliance, EPA should ensure that the data and models underlying scientific studies that are pivotal to the regulatory action are available for review and reanalysis. The “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rulemaking is designed to increase transparency in the preparation, identification and use of science in rulemaking. When final, this action will ensure that the regulatory science underlying EPA’s actions are made available in a manner sufficient for independent validation.

EPA has not finalized this proposal but responds to the claims alleged as they are not an accurate account of where the proposal stands. How the New York Times got it wrong:

The reporter incorrectly reports that “unlike a proposal that surfaced in early 2018, this one could apply retroactively to public health regulations already in place.” This is completely false...


https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/new-york-times-several-glaring-inaccuracies-thats-fit-print

​

​

 

[trysail]

"...Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it..."

- Phil Jones, Ph.D.
Climate Research Unit
University of East Anglia​

​

 

[trysail]

Notwithstanding wild exaggeration by climate activists and propagandists that "the science is settled," substantial fundamental unknowns riddle what is currently a pseudoscience: climatology.

All the prognostications of doom arise from horribly flawed computer models of the future climate. The models (and their forecasts) are unverified and unreliable for a simple reason: climastrology doesn't understand the climate system and the models are based on currently unknown coefficients (not least of which is climate sensitivity— i.e., the response of the climate system to additional carbon dioxide) of putative independent variables (e.g., carbon dioxide).

Complicit and credulous print and broadcast media endlessly regurgitates the wild exaggerations of doom without any mention of the massive unknowns and the unlikely assumptions incorporated in the unreliable forecasts.

The result: a gargantuan popular delusion.







Explaining The Discrepancies Between Hausfather et al (2019) and Lewis & Curry (2018)

by Ross McKitrick, Ph.D.

"...Challenging the claim that a large set of climate model runs published since 1970’s are consistent with observations for the right reasons.

Introduction

Zeke Hausfather et al. (2019) (herein ZH19) examined a large set of climate model runs published since the 1970s and claimed they were consistent with observations, once errors in the emission projections are considered. It is an interesting and valuable paper and has received a lot of press attention. In this post, I will explain what the authors did and then discuss a couple of issues arising, beginning with IPCC over-estimation of CO2 emissions, a literature to which Hausfather et al. make a striking contribution. I will then present a critique of some aspects of their regression analyses. I find that they have not specified their main regression correctly, and this undermines some of their conclusions. Using a more valid regression model helps explain why their findings aren’t inconsistent with Lewis and Curry (2018) which did show models to be inconsistent with observations..."


https://judithcurry.com/2020/01/17/...en-hausfather-et-al-2019-and-lewiscurry-2018/

​

​

 

[bestone4ever]

https://www.axios.com/temperature-records-set-in-2019-512a1109-99ae-45aa-8953-781ff955c91d.html

Shut the fuck up, retard.

 

[von_Bismarck]

When mainstream print and broadcast media are taking the ravings of a hysterical and delusional 17-year old female seriously, you have proof that the media is no longer a reliable source of information on the topic.


When you have supposedly trustworthy "scientists" opposing the disclosure of the data employed in their putative "peer reviewed" papers, you may be certain the study results have not been properly reviewed, verified or reproduced.

Secret Science Under Attack— Part I

Secret Science Under Attack— Part II
by Kip Hansen

"...The E.P.A. issued a Press release the next day, 12 November 2019, titled “The New York Times’ Several Glaring Inaccuracies “That’s Fit To Print””, rebutting the Friedman story using the following language: (all segments are direct quotes and were bolded in the original press release)

“How the New York Times got it wrong:

…. This is completely false….

……which is completely false….

…. This is not true. ….

…. The story continues with more false information. ….

…. This is just wrong. ….

…. Science transparency does not weaken science, quite the contrary. ….

…. This is just bad reporting. It is completely misleading, and lacks the understanding of the rule making process. ….

…. This is completely false. ….

…. the reporter confuses the situation by using “raw data,” which is clarified in the supplemental. ….

…. This is not a new rule. ….”
​

How did the NY Times cover this press release? Did the NY Times print a correction to the Friedman article? No, it didn’t print a single word about it…not one mention … not even a little postscript added to the bottom of the original article. Despite the E.P.A.’s unusual official public statement intended to correct errors and mis-statements in the Friedman article, there has been no mention in the NY Times of the E.P.A. press release — not then, and not to date, two months later..."



​

https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/image6.png
​

​

Fuck off, shill.

How much is the industry paying you for *this* thread??

 

[trysail]

https://www.axios.com/temperature-records-set-in-2019-512a1109-99ae-45aa-8953-781ff955c91d.html

Shut the fuck up, retard.

...and you're going to tell us you how and why you know causation.


...and you're also going to explain why global temperatures stopped declining at the end of the 17th century's Little Ice Age.


...and you're also going to explain why temperatures ceased rising at the end of the Medieval Warm Period.​

 

[bestone4ever]

...and you're going to tell us you how and why you know causation.


...and you're also going to explain why global temperatures stopped declining at the end of the 17th century's Little Ice Age.


...and you're also going to explain why temperatures ceased rising at the end of the Medieval Warm Period.​

No. I'm telling you that the temps are increasing based on factual data proven by the 2019 data. You're a fucking oil honk, old as fuck and too set in your ways to understand new tech. Your ignorance is dangerous.

 

[trysail]

No. I'm telling you that the temps are increasing based on factual data proven by the 2019 data. You're a fucking oil honk, old as fuck and too set in your ways to understand new tech. Your ignorance is dangerous.

In other words, you haven't got the foggiest idea in hell why.


By the way, what's the measurement error for that data and how far back does the historic instrumental temperature record extend?


​

 

[bestone4ever]

In other words, you haven't got the foggiest idea in hell why.


By the way, what's the measurement error for that data and how far back does the historic instrumental temperature record extend?


​

Why do you deny the science? The Earth is getting hotter by the year. There's no argument about that. If you think more people on Earth using more single use products and throwing pollutants in the air isn't a real thing, well, fuck you, retard.

 

[trysail]

For the decade 2010-2019, the satellite temperatures averaged only 0.15 C higher than in the previous decade (2000-2009). That’s less than a third of a degree F, which no one would even notice over 10 years.


​

 

[trysail]

Why do you deny the science? The Earth is getting hotter by the year. There's no argument about that. If you think more people on Earth using more single use products and throwing pollutants in the air isn't a real thing, well, fuck you, retard.

What "science?"


Global temperatures have varied naturally for millennia.

​

 

[bestone4ever]

What "science?"


Global temperatures have varied naturally for millennia.

​

I've read you say that we only have RECENT reliable climate analysis but not you're saying the temps have tired for a millennia? Make up your small mind.

 

[trysail]

If you don't know what RCP8.5 is (and its assumptions and the scenario incorporated therein), you ARE being flummoxed and bamboozled by people who are intentionally trying to panic you with their computer-based forecasts of the future climate.



​

 

[bestone4ever]

If you don't know what RCP8.5 is (and its assumptions and the scenario incorporated therein), you ARE being flummoxed and bamboozled by people who are intentionally trying to panic you with their computer-based forecasts of the future climate.



​

Make up your mind.

 

[phrodeau]

In other words, you haven't got the foggiest idea in hell why.


By the way, what's the measurement error for that data and how far back does the historic instrumental temperature record extend?


​

Can you tell us?

And can you tell how much temperature increase this chart shows?

(edited)

https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/image6.png
​

 

[trysail]

The Seductiveness Of Models
by "Pointman"

(emphasis added)

"...I have to confess at this point that though I said I’d pick a simple problem and I did, I also know that when it comes to modelling reality, there’s no such thing as a simple problem. We understand the physics and mathematics of this problem and can come up with a first run prediction that is well within some reasonable range of error. What we cannot do, is feed the result of a run into subsequent ones because all that happens is the error margin is soon exceeded. Any error at all will soon magnify on subsequent runs.

This is exactly what climate simulators do and why they need such powerful computers; it’s not that the calculations are complex, it’s the simple fact the simulation is run hundreds or thousands of times. The output from any one run may look plausible as the input for the next run but the overall result is guaranteed to be completely wrong.

When it comes to modelling climate, we simply don’t know enough about the factors we’re including. We still don’t understand clouds and as for turbulence, come up with the math to handle that adequately and you’ll be on the receiving end of a Fields Medal and a Nobel Prize. Newton and Einstein will turn green with envy. We also have to consider that there may be major ‘unknown unknowns’ we’re simply not aware of. Until a few short years ago, the major weather phenomena whimsically called Sprites, Jets and Elves were undiscovered. What else is out there?

The people working on the Snooker problem also illustrate the biggest drawback of climate modelling; it’s not possible to validate any of the models because there’s no way to build the equivalent of the cueing machine. We’ve simply got to believe that what they’re predicting to happen in a few decades or hundreds of years is accurate. Believing them is essentially an act of faith. The models don’t even agree with each other and sometimes by quantitative amounts greater than the temperature rise they’re predicting..."




more at:
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/the-seductiveness-of-models/


​

​

 

[RoryN]

Where's my royalties for your thread title format?

 

[trysail]

Profile Of The Climategate Whistleblower

by "Pointman"



(emphasis added)

"...The whistleblower is almost certainly a man. Whistleblower is such a long word and gets in the way of developing a mental image so I shall call him Unus henceforth...

...Let’s focus on Unus to see what picture we can get from what little details we have of his activities. The first reliable report of the offering up of the zip file is to BBC journalist Paul Hudson on the 12th October 2009. Why him? Because Hudson had recently penned an atypical BBC piece entitled “Whatever Happened To Global Warming”. He also worked for a respected british institution with journalistic integrity (sarcasm on my part but not for Unus at the time). Hudson, at face value, looked to be at least sympathetic and he did work for the BBC. He, of course, decided or had it decided for him, not to run with the scoop of the century (that was your 15 minutes, Paul)...

...What’s this tell us about Unus? Basically, he’s far from worldly wise and politically very very naive. The BBC may run the odd story questioning AGW doctrine but that’s just a nod to the impartiality bit of the Charter...

...Most commentary on Climategate discusses the emails. What’s commonly forgotten is that the zip file also contained program source code and a lot of it. Emails are written in plain English, programs are written in a programming language. The difference is that while the former can be ambiguous, the latter is totally unambiguous. If you’re going to cheat on the computer side, you have to programme it explicitly to cheat, you can’t fudge it. Take my word for it or take the time to check out some of the analysis done, the code is ten times more damning then the emails. That’s why Unus added it to the payload. He’s comfortable reading computer code..."



more at:
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/profile-of-the-climategate-whistleblower/


​

​

 

[von_Bismarck]

The Seductiveness Of Models
by "Pointman"

(emphasis added)

"...I have to confess at this point that though I said I’d pick a simple problem and I did, I also know that when it comes to modelling reality, there’s no such thing as a simple problem. We understand the physics and mathematics of this problem and can come up with a first run prediction that is well within some reasonable range of error. What we cannot do, is feed the result of a run into subsequent ones because all that happens is the error margin is soon exceeded. Any error at all will soon magnify on subsequent runs.

This is exactly what climate simulators do and why they need such powerful computers; it’s not that the calculations are complex, it’s the simple fact the simulation is run hundreds or thousands of times. The output from any one run may look plausible as the input for the next run but the overall result is guaranteed to be completely wrong.

When it comes to modelling climate, we simply don’t know enough about the factors we’re including. We still don’t understand clouds and as for turbulence, come up with the math to handle that adequately and you’ll be on the receiving end of a Fields Medal and a Nobel Prize. Newton and Einstein will turn green with envy. We also have to consider that there may be major ‘unknown unknowns’ we’re simply not aware of. Until a few short years ago, the major weather phenomena whimsically called Sprites, Jets and Elves were undiscovered. What else is out there?

The people working on the Snooker problem also illustrate the biggest drawback of climate modelling; it’s not possible to validate any of the models because there’s no way to build the equivalent of the cueing machine. We’ve simply got to believe that what they’re predicting to happen in a few decades or hundreds of years is accurate. Believing them is essentially an act of faith. The models don’t even agree with each other and sometimes by quantitative amounts greater than the temperature rise they’re predicting..."




more at:
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/the-seductiveness-of-models/


​

​

You must be a special kind of dumb to imagine a post like this supports your anti-science worldview at all.

 

[phrodeau]

Can you tell us?

And can you tell how much temperature increase this chart shows?

I guess he can’t.

 

[bestone4ever]

I guess he can’t.

I've noticed that she rarely responds in her own words and when she does, she usually just answers with an asinine question that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[RocketLauncher]

http://pics.me.me/dear-old-angry-white-male-climate-change-deniers-ewnruckinghatedonaldtrump-show-63493041.png

 

[RocketLauncher]

http://www.donnellycolt.com/catalog/media/S-GLB.jpg