Skip to main content

 

https://twitter.com/BillNye/status/563744620467593216

Bill Nye, science goof, posted at 9:02 AM - 6 Feb 2015

“Bare slopes in Jackson Hole, WY. Nothin' to worry about- just a little climate change”

 

Trouble is on 8 February:

 Nye1

For the season

Nye2

http://michellemalkin.com/2015...-alive-with-science/

 

And, warmists wonder why so many are skeptics.

TRUTH -- THE NEW HATE SPEECH!

Attachments

Images (4)
  • Nye1
  • Nye2
  • Nye1
  • Nye2
Last edited by direstraits
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

 

Last edited by Mr. Hooberbloob
Originally Posted by OldSalt:

What a con artist!  He has NASA, NOAA, USGS, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Academy, every other science organization on earth, and a majority of scientists duped into believing climate change is true. 

________________

 

It's amazing isn't it? It's got to be the biggest con job in human history!  I'd say its right up there with claiming that the earth is round....

Last edited by Jankinonya

Keep seeing the 97 or 98 percent of scientists or climatologists agree on warming.  As I showed in another thread, that was based on one small poll of a few climatologists.  To make such a claim, meeting legal requirements, requires a rigorous statistical sampling. I've done such sampling for years and defended such in court.  To make such a claim, one must identify how many climatologists exist in the world. Then determine accuracy of the poll one wishes to attain.  They select  a sample and poll the selected scientists. The sample number would be about 10 percent of all climatologists to be legally defensible or about 10 percent of all scientists in the world, if one wished to make that claim. 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...ut-temperature-data/

"Nothing False About Temperature Data"

 

"In total, at least one “bias correction” was applied to 3,297 of the 7,279 stations in use at some point since 1801, though most of these occurred from the 1950s through the 1980s. As the chart below shows, there are approximately equal numbers of adjustments in the positive and negative directions.

 

temperatureadjustments

"The supposed manipulation of data by East Anglia and other scientists in the Climategate affair also proved to be completely unfounded, as we have written twice before.

 

Climate skeptics claimed that leaked emails between many climate scientists around the world showed there was a coordinated effort to inflate the global warming signal in temperature data. But several separate investigations, including by the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General and the Environmental Protection Agency, found no such wrongdoing or manipulation.

According to one independent international investigation, known informally as the Oxburgh Report: “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.” Palmer’s spokesman said the congressman had no comment on the repetition of this claim in spite of the repeated exonerations.

 

Palmer’s claim that “we are building an entire agenda on falsified data” has no basis in evidence. Even as these claims of data manipulation have resurfaced, there is now a general consensus that 2014 was the hottest single year since temperature record keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization. The United Kingdom’s Met Office said that 2014 was among the warmest along with 2010, but it is impossible to say for sure that 2014 was hotter. According to NASA, nine of the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2000, with 1998 the lone exception."

http://mediamatters.org/resear...media-distort/157590

 

"Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus

"Since the reported theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, conservative media figures have aggressively claimed that those emails undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change, dubbing the supposed scandal "Climategate." But these critics have largely rested their claims on outlandish distortions and misrepresentations of the contents of the stolen emails, greatly undermining their dubious smears."

 

NASA's Gavin Schmidt: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate.

NYT: "Hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument." The New York Times' Andrew Revkin reported on November 20 that "[t]he evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists."

UCS: Our understanding of climate science is based "on the rigorous accumulation, testing and synthesis of knowledge." Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and an IPCC author stated, "We should keep in mind that our understanding of climate science is based not on private correspondence, but on the rigorous accumulation, testing and synthesis of knowledge often represented in the dry and factual prose of peer-reviewed literature. The scientific community is united in calling on U.S. policymakers to recognize that emissions of heat-trapping gases must be dramatically reduced if we are to avoid the worst consequences of human-induced climate change."

Yale Project on Climate Change director: "[T]here's no smoking gun in the e-mails from what I've seen." Reuters stated that Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change said, "It shows that the process of science is not always pristine ... But there's no smoking gun in the e-mails from what I've seen." The Reuters article further noted that "the researchers involved were only a handful out of thousands across the world that have contributed to a vast convergence of data that shows the world has warmed." The article also quoted Piers Forster, an environment professor at the University of Leeds stating, "Whilst some of the e-mails show scientists to be all too human, nothing I have read makes me doubt the veracity of the peer review process or the general warming trend in the global temperature recorded."

 

 

Originally Posted by OldSalt:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...ut-temperature-data/

"Nothing False About Temperature Data"

 

"In total, at least one “bias correction” was applied to 3,297 of the 7,279 stations in use at some point since 1801, though most of these occurred from the 1950s through the 1980s. As the chart below shows, there are approximately equal numbers of adjustments in the positive and negative directions.

 

temperatureadjustments

"The supposed manipulation of data by East Anglia and other scientists in the Climategate affair also proved to be completely unfounded, as we have written twice before.

 

Climate skeptics claimed that leaked emails between many climate scientists around the world showed there was a coordinated effort to inflate the global warming signal in temperature data. But several separate investigations, including by the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General and the Environmental Protection Agency, found no such wrongdoing or manipulation.

According to one independent international investigation, known informally as the Oxburgh Report: “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.” Palmer’s spokesman said the congressman had no comment on the repetition of this claim in spite of the repeated exonerations.

 

Palmer’s claim that “we are building an entire agenda on falsified data” has no basis in evidence. Even as these claims of data manipulation have resurfaced, there is now a general consensus that 2014 was the hottest single year since temperature record keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization. The United Kingdom’s Met Office said that 2014 was among the warmest along with 2010, but it is impossible to say for sure that 2014 was hotter. According to NASA, nine of the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2000, with 1998 the lone exception."

_____________________________________________________

Not so fast, one must get into the weeds on some of these claims

 

This should shut up the “climate deniers”!

… or maybe not. In fact, by NASA’s and NOAA’s own admission, there is less than a 50 percent chance that 2014 is the hottest year on record. In addition, this supposed record was beaten by .04°C, which is within the margin of error of .09°C – all of which was very quietly published. Furthermore, responsibles at Berkeley Earth-Soil Temperature (BEST) contradict NASA’s claim as temperatures have been stagnating for about a decade.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01...-on-record-or-is-it/

 

Also, the article skirts the 'normalizing of temperatures method.  Temperatures of the cities (much higher) were applied to the countryside instead of vica versa.  This made it appear the entire area was hotter.

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by OldSalt:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...ut-temperature-data/

"Nothing False About Temperature Data"

 

"In total, at least one “bias correction” was applied to 3,297 of the 7,279 stations in use at some point since 1801, though most of these occurred from the 1950s through the 1980s. As the chart below shows, there are approximately equal numbers of adjustments in the positive and negative directions.

 

temperatureadjustments

"The supposed manipulation of data by East Anglia and other scientists in the Climategate affair also proved to be completely unfounded, as we have written twice before.

 

Climate skeptics claimed that leaked emails between many climate scientists around the world showed there was a coordinated effort to inflate the global warming signal in temperature data. But several separate investigations, including by the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General and the Environmental Protection Agency, found no such wrongdoing or manipulation.

According to one independent international investigation, known informally as the Oxburgh Report: “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.” Palmer’s spokesman said the congressman had no comment on the repetition of this claim in spite of the repeated exonerations.

 

Palmer’s claim that “we are building an entire agenda on falsified data” has no basis in evidence. Even as these claims of data manipulation have resurfaced, there is now a general consensus that 2014 was the hottest single year since temperature record keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization. The United Kingdom’s Met Office said that 2014 was among the warmest along with 2010, but it is impossible to say for sure that 2014 was hotter. According to NASA, nine of the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2000, with 1998 the lone exception."

_____________________________________________________

Not so fast, one must get into the weeds on some of these claims

 

This should shut up the “climate deniers”!

… or maybe not. In fact, by NASA’s and NOAA’s own admission, there is less than a 50 percent chance that 2014 is the hottest year on record. In addition, this supposed record was beaten by .04°C, which is within the margin of error of .09°C – all of which was very quietly published. Furthermore, responsibles at Berkeley Earth-Soil Temperature (BEST) contradict NASA’s claim as temperatures have been stagnating for about a decade.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01...-on-record-or-is-it/

 

Also, the article skirts the 'normalizing of temperatures method.  Temperatures of the cities (much higher) were applied to the countryside instead of vica versa.  This made it appear the entire area was hotter.

 

__________________________

I thought you were some kind of numbers guy Dire...

 

This guy said it best. (As found in the comments section of TDC article)

 

"Well, apparently you don't know how to read uncertainty. You're going with the 2% year, or the 5% year? Scientists and those with common sense are going with the 38% or 48% year.

I think I should start playing poker with Conservatives. Not many who understand statistics or odds."

 

Does it mean anything to you that we have had our hottest years in recorded history in the last 10 years? 

 

 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by OldSalt:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...ut-temperature-data/

"Nothing False About Temperature Data"

 

"In total, at least one “bias correction” was applied to 3,297 of the 7,279 stations in use at some point since 1801, though most of these occurred from the 1950s through the 1980s. As the chart below shows, there are approximately equal numbers of adjustments in the positive and negative directions.

 

temperatureadjustments

"The supposed manipulation of data by East Anglia and other scientists in the Climategate affair also proved to be completely unfounded, as we have written twice before.

 

Climate skeptics claimed that leaked emails between many climate scientists around the world showed there was a coordinated effort to inflate the global warming signal in temperature data. But several separate investigations, including by the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General and the Environmental Protection Agency, found no such wrongdoing or manipulation.

According to one independent international investigation, known informally as the Oxburgh Report: “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.” Palmer’s spokesman said the congressman had no comment on the repetition of this claim in spite of the repeated exonerations.

 

Palmer’s claim that “we are building an entire agenda on falsified data” has no basis in evidence. Even as these claims of data manipulation have resurfaced, there is now a general consensus that 2014 was the hottest single year since temperature record keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization. The United Kingdom’s Met Office said that 2014 was among the warmest along with 2010, but it is impossible to say for sure that 2014 was hotter. According to NASA, nine of the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2000, with 1998 the lone exception."

_____________________________________________________

Not so fast, one must get into the weeds on some of these claims

 

This should shut up the “climate deniers”!

… or maybe not. In fact, by NASA’s and NOAA’s own admission, there is less than a 50 percent chance that 2014 is the hottest year on record. In addition, this supposed record was beaten by .04°C, which is within the margin of error of .09°C – all of which was very quietly published. Furthermore, responsibles at Berkeley Earth-Soil Temperature (BEST) contradict NASA’s claim as temperatures have been stagnating for about a decade.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01...-on-record-or-is-it/

 

Also, the article skirts the 'normalizing of temperatures method.  Temperatures of the cities (much higher) were applied to the countryside instead of vica versa.  This made it appear the entire area was hotter.

 

__________________________

I thought you were some kind of numbers guy Dire...

 

This guy said it best. (As found in the comments section of TDC article)

 

"Well, apparently you don't know how to read uncertainty. You're going with the 2% year, or the 5% year? Scientists and those with common sense are going with the 38% or 48% year.

I think I should start playing poker with Conservatives. Not many who understand statistics or odds."

 

Does it mean anything to you that we have had our hottest years in recorded history in the last 10 years? 

 

 


Recorded history does not represent anything considering the age of our planet.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by OldSalt:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...ut-temperature-data/

"Nothing False About Temperature Data"

 

"In total, at least one “bias correction” was applied to 3,297 of the 7,279 stations in use at some point since 1801, though most of these occurred from the 1950s through the 1980s. As the chart below shows, there are approximately equal numbers of adjustments in the positive and negative directions.

 

temperatureadjustments

"The supposed manipulation of data by East Anglia and other scientists in the Climategate affair also proved to be completely unfounded, as we have written twice before.

 

Climate skeptics claimed that leaked emails between many climate scientists around the world showed there was a coordinated effort to inflate the global warming signal in temperature data. But several separate investigations, including by the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General and the Environmental Protection Agency, found no such wrongdoing or manipulation.

According to one independent international investigation, known informally as the Oxburgh Report: “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.” Palmer’s spokesman said the congressman had no comment on the repetition of this claim in spite of the repeated exonerations.

 

Palmer’s claim that “we are building an entire agenda on falsified data” has no basis in evidence. Even as these claims of data manipulation have resurfaced, there is now a general consensus that 2014 was the hottest single year since temperature record keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization. The United Kingdom’s Met Office said that 2014 was among the warmest along with 2010, but it is impossible to say for sure that 2014 was hotter. According to NASA, nine of the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2000, with 1998 the lone exception."

_____________________________________________________

Not so fast, one must get into the weeds on some of these claims

 

This should shut up the “climate deniers”!

… or maybe not. In fact, by NASA’s and NOAA’s own admission, there is less than a 50 percent chance that 2014 is the hottest year on record. In addition, this supposed record was beaten by .04°C, which is within the margin of error of .09°C – all of which was very quietly published. Furthermore, responsibles at Berkeley Earth-Soil Temperature (BEST) contradict NASA’s claim as temperatures have been stagnating for about a decade.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01...-on-record-or-is-it/

 

Also, the article skirts the 'normalizing of temperatures method.  Temperatures of the cities (much higher) were applied to the countryside instead of vica versa.  This made it appear the entire area was hotter.

 

__________________________

I thought you were some kind of numbers guy Dire...

 

This guy said it best. (As found in the comments section of TDC article)

 

"Well, apparently you don't know how to read uncertainty. You're going with the 2% year, or the 5% year? Scientists and those with common sense are going with the 38% or 48% year.

I think I should start playing poker with Conservatives. Not many who understand statistics or odds."

 

Does it mean anything to you that we have had our hottest years in recorded history in the last 10 years? 

 _____________________________________________________

Obviously, you did not understand how the reversed normalizing of temperatures -- applying the higher temperature of the small area of a city to the hundreds of square miles of the surrounding area (with a lower temperature) would force a higher temperature and give an unreal results. Never play pool with a guy named Fats, nor poker with a guy named Slim.  Unless, Slim is a liberal, then one can take him to the cleaners.

 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×