Climate Catastrophe

[EternalOptimist]

Six. The court of public opinion. Guilty as charged

[EternalOptimist]

Everybody knows that the USA surface record shows a strong warming and everybody also knows that nearly half the readings are statistical fabrications, everybody also knows that the made up readings are based on the nearest urban readings, often from airports. Everyone knows that without these estimates the record would show a cooling.

Everyone.

[DodgyAgent]

If Scientists were genuinely concerned about the greenhouse gas problem they would investigate technologies such as this: ..:: Welcome to Nualgi ::.. Volcanoes spray the seas with iron that has the effect of creating phytoplankton that feeds into the food chain. The effect is to draw CO2 from the atmosphere, sequester carbon, de acidify the seas and oceans and provide more Oxygen
Scientists and the global warming zealots have killed off any attemts to experiment with Ocean fertilisation technology. I wonder why

[pjclarke]

Wow wikipedia I'm sold the argument is settled, what next quoting Putin or Mugabe to back you up

The cult of climate change continues, a worse threat to the world than ISIS

And now on to Climate Gate 2.0

Now? That article is 4 years old, where's the smoking gun? Wiki is useful as a starting point and it provides links into the (at least) five reports of panels that investigated the leaked/stolen emails and found no evidence of data manipulation. So you can go read them yourself and make your own mind up.

Wiki also tells me that these days

Forbes.com uses a "contributor model" in which a wide network of "contributors" writes and publishes articles directly on the website

In other words it's little more than a blog, and this piece is a tiny collection of selective, context-free snatches of emails.

Written by a Fellow of the Heartland Institute.

Posted on a business website.

In 2011.

In the 'Opinion' section.

I'm trying to work out what you could have done to be less pursuasive.

No actual evidence, then

[MicrosoftBob]

Well if you're going to use Wikipedia as evidence anything is fair game, but you'e too deep in your new religion to care

Meanwhile corporations and scientists can continue to collude on this climate con

[pjclarke]

Everybody knows that the USA surface record shows a strong warming and everybody also knows that nearly half the readings are statistical fabrications, everybody also knows that the made up readings are based on the nearest urban readings, often from airports. Everyone knows that without these estimates the record would show a cooling.

Everyone.

Everyone knows that assertions based solely on reading denier websites should be checked.

Q.*Does GISS do any data checking and alterations?
A.*Yes. GISS applies semi-automatic quality control routines listing records that look unrealistic. After manual inspection, those data are either kept or rejected. GISS does make an adjustment to deal with potential artifacts associated with urban heat islands, whereby the long-term regional trend derived from rural stations is used instead of the trends from urban centers in the analysis.

Data.GISS: GISTEMP -- Frequently Asked Questions

As they frequently turn out to be the opposite of reality.

[pjclarke]

Well if you're going to use Wikipedia as evidence

I didn't. HTH.

[WordIsBond]

You might want to re-read my actual words.

I did read them. You said:

So the reports are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be,

LOL.

See above. You underestimate the discipline if you believe that these factors have not been discussed and adjusted for ad infinitum, and uncertainties clearly stated.

Oh, there are significant uncertainties? Ah, then perhaps this isn't true....

So the reports are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be,

LOLOL.

See above. You underestimate the discipline if you believe that these factors have not been discussed and adjusted for ad infinitum, and uncertainties clearly stated. The review process is multi-stepped and every step is completely open. If you know of a better way of assessing and communicating the state of our understanding, and informing policymakers, I'd love to hear it.

Oh. We're looking to drive policy when there are uncertainties? Is anyone actually talking about those uncertainties in the Religious Education classes where this belief is propagated? How come anyone who expresses any such uncertainties in the public forum is ridiculed and shouted down? How come anyone who expresses any doubts about the certainties of this religion draws an immediate response from you?

Using your narrow definition, any data that was not generated under laboratory conditions is not 'trustworthy'. Using that principle, astronomy, for example, does not qualify as science. Now that is absurd.

I'll stick with my narrow definition, if I want to say things like this:

So the reports are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be,

Because many, many scientific documents HAVE been produced based on the level of certainty that closely controlled experimentation gives. And NO document that seeks to project the future without those levels of controls can ever be considered on the same level.

The state religion has nothing to do with the Church of England anymore. We're all being taxed to support it, too.

[EternalOptimist]

ask pj what are the benefits of GW

[MicrosoftBob]

I didn't. HTH.

You did

But back to your new age sky fairy religion