• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global Warming Confirmed

Lord of Planar said:
If you stand by that statement, or are a very arrogant ignorant person. I stay away from conspiracy blogs. I have at most, argued against them. Not for them. If you really see my points of view as that of seeing conspiracy, then I truly pity your lack of comprehension.
Click to expand...

Sure LOP. You think WUWT is a good blog. Its conspiracy pseudoscience rubbish. Just the sort of thing you love.
 
The foolishness of "consensus" nonsense, deconstructed:

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Spanking the Public Mind: Professional Associations’ Position Statements[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen The internet information pipe is gushing out information faster than most people can handle. It is increasingly difficult to sort and strain that information flow to find the bits that are important for one’s work. One of my many filters is the continuing series of blog posts by Judith…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Ross McKitrick administers the coup de grace to this misbegotten claim.


[h=2]Critique of the new Santer et al. (2019) paper[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on March 1, 2019 by curryja | 23 comments[/FONT]
by Ross McKitrick
Ben Santer et al. have a new paper out in Nature Climate Change arguing that with 40 years of satellite data available they can detect the anthropogenic influence in the mid-troposphere at a 5-sigma level of confidence. This, they point out, is the “gold standard” of proof in particle physics, even invoking for comparison the Higgs boson discovery in their Supplementary information.
Continue reading →


Conclusion
The fact that in my example the t-statistic on anthro falls to a low level does not “prove” that anthropogenic forcing has no effect on tropospheric temperatures. It does show that in the framework of my model the effects are not statistically significant. If you think the model is correctly-specified and the data set is appropriate you will have reason to accept the result, at least provisionally. If you have reason to doubt the correctness of the specification then you are not obliged to accept the result.
This is the nature of evidence from statistical modeling: it is contingent on the specification and assumptions. In my view the second regression is a more valid specification than the first one, so faced with a choice between the two, the second set of results is more valid. But there may be other, more valid specifications that yield different results.
In the same way, since I have reason to doubt the validity of the Santer et al. model I don’t accept their conclusions. They haven’t shown what they say they showed. In particular they have not identified a unique anthropogenic fingerprint, or provided a credible control for natural variability over the sample period. Nor have they justified the use of Gaussian p-values. Their claim to have attained a “gold standard” of proof are unwarranted, in part because statistical modeling can never do that, and in part because of the specific problems in their model.
 
Jack Hays said:
The claim is a lie.
Click to expand...

I'll repost this from the original link, and you prove that it's a lie.

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.
 
Media_Truth said:
I'll repost this from the original link, and you prove that it's a lie.

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.
Click to expand...

Please see #57.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please see #57.
Click to expand...

That's just one scientist (Curry), who has been discredited.

Judith Curry - SourceWatch

Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused spiel for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place
...
Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry.
 
Media_Truth said:
That's just one scientist (Curry), who has been discredited.

Judith Curry - SourceWatch

Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused spiel for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place
...
Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry.
Click to expand...

The smear of Judith Curry only discredits you, not her. But the best part is that you aimed at the wrong target. Santer's paper was demolished by Ross McKitrick, not Curry. Read first. Then post.
 
Jack Hays said:
The smear of Judith Curry only discredits you, not her. But the best part is that you aimed at the wrong target. Santer's paper was demolished by Ross McKitrick, not Curry. Read first. Then post.
Click to expand...

It was posted on the Big-Oil-Paid Judith Curry's website. You humorously continue to quote 4 or 5 scientists from your blog sites, as if their word is gospel. Meanwhile tens of thousands of scientists don't even bother with their opinions, because they know they are garbage.
 
Media_Truth said:
It was posted on the Big-Oil-Paid Judith Curry's website. You humorously continue to quote 4 or 5 scientists from your blog sites, as if their word is gospel. Meanwhile tens of thousands of scientists don't even bother with their opinions, because they know they are garbage.
Click to expand...

Please provide evidence for "Big-Oil-Paid."
 
Media_Truth said:
It was posted on the Big-Oil-Paid Judith Curry's website. You humorously continue to quote 4 or 5 scientists from your blog sites, as if their word is gospel. Meanwhile tens of thousands of scientists don't even bother with their opinions, because they know they are garbage.
Click to expand...

Posted at Climate, Etc.

Funding disclosure: Funding sources for my research have included NSF, NASA, NOAA, DOD and DOE. Recent government contracts for CFAN include a DOE contract to develop extended range regional wind power forecasts, a DOD contract to predict extreme events associated with climate variability/change having implications for regional stability, and a NOAA contract to improve sub seasonal forecasting. CFAN contracts with private sector and other non-governmental organizations include energy and power companies, reinsurance companies, financial companies, other weather service providers, NGOs, development banks and government agencies.
 
Media_Truth said:
It was posted on the Big-Oil-Paid Judith Curry's website. You humorously continue to quote 4 or 5 scientists from your blog sites, as if their word is gospel. Meanwhile tens of thousands of scientists don't even bother with their opinions, because they know they are garbage.
Click to expand...

Void argument fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Paradox. You claim influence because one scientist is paid from one source, yet completely ignore that most scientists are paid from a single source (the government) and the influence of THAT.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please provide evidence for "Big-Oil-Paid."
Click to expand...

It's academic. He is claiming influence because of one source of payment, while completely ignoring the influence caused by government funding of scientists. He is in paradox, born out of a bulverism fallacy and bigotry.
 
In the 1970's the earth cooled slightly. According to the hoax, it was caused by man's behavior, it was going to be bad, we were entering a "Mini-Ice Age", we had 10-20 years to do something, what had to be done involved the US, and no one else, spending lots of money. Twenty years came and went, we did nothing and nothing happened. The hoax was a total failure.

Then, in the 1990's the earth warmed slightly. According to the hoax, it was caused by man's behavior (identical behavior, opposite result - amazing), it was going to bad, we had 10-20 years to do something, what had to be done involved the US, and no one else, spending lots of money. Twenty years came and went, we did nothing and nothing happened. The hoax was a total failure.

The above wasn't the result of research, we watched it on TV.

Now the earth is cooling again. And now it's "Climate Change". Now man's behavior is causing the climate to change. Warmer, cooler, more wind, less wind, more storms, fewer storms... Whatever happens, it's man's behavior. And now according to Congresswoman Ortez we only have 12 years to do something. She should know, she was a waitress for many years.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times? Are you serious?
 
tonyeveland said:
In the 1970's the earth cooled slightly. According to the hoax, it was caused by man's behavior, it was going to be bad, we were entering a "Mini-Ice Age", we had 10-20 years to do something, what had to be done involved the US, and no one else, spending lots of money. Twenty years came and went, we did nothing and nothing happened. The hoax was a total failure.

Then, in the 1990's the earth warmed slightly. According to the hoax, it was caused by man's behavior (identical behavior, opposite result - amazing), it was going to bad, we had 10-20 years to do something, what had to be done involved the US, and no one else, spending lots of money. Twenty years came and went, we did nothing and nothing happened. The hoax was a total failure.

The above wasn't the result of research, we watched it on TV.

Now the earth is cooling again. And now it's "Climate Change". Now man's behavior is causing the climate to change. Warmer, cooler, more wind, less wind, more storms, fewer storms... Whatever happens, it's man's behavior. And now according to Congresswoman Ortez we only have 12 years to do something. She should know, she was a waitress for many years.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times? Are you serious?
Click to expand...

Well, you got the fool thing down, that’s for sure.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, you got the fool thing down, that’s for sure.
Click to expand...

I remember sitting in a common office area, working afternoon shift. Somebody flipped on FOX News, and they had a "scientist" being interviewed about Climate Change. These people buy this political nonsense over the tens of thousands of expert Climatologists worldwide. If FOX was honest in their coverage, they would interview about 500 pro-AGW scientists to every one anti-AGW scientist. That's the kind of ratios that are reality.
 
Media_Truth said:
I remember sitting in a common office area, working afternoon shift. Somebody flipped on FOX News, and they had a "scientist" being interviewed about Climate Change. These people buy this political nonsense over the tens of thousands of expert Climatologists worldwide. If FOX was honest in their coverage, they would interview about 500 pro-AGW scientists to every one anti-AGW scientist. That's the kind of ratios that are reality.
Click to expand...

If it was levelized to the amount of research money paid divided by the scientists it's paid for, the non-AGW scientists would probably outnumber the AGW scientist 5 to 1.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If it was levelized to the amount of research money paid divided by the scientists it's paid for, the non-AGW scientists would probably outnumber the AGW scientist 5 to 1.
Click to expand...

Just like the gravity and non-gravity scientists.

Such a joke.
 
There is a document signed by 30,000 scientist saying that global warming is BS. Your 500 to 1 nonsense means that there are 15 Million scientist that say it's real.

Are you really standing by that story?
 
tonyeveland said:
There is a document signed by 30,000 scientist saying that global warming is BS. Your 500 to 1 nonsense means that there are 15 Million scientist that say it's real.

Are you really standing by that story?
Click to expand...

There is a document signed by 30,000 people.

Only suckers believe it’s all signed by scientists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom