So people are sceptical about climate change…what to do? How about cooking the books, sensationalising the figures, moving the goalposts and lying.
The gap between what the climate lobby has marked as the start of global warming and temperatures now is too small and insignificant? Then move the start point to where the temperature was much colder….voila…a much higher apparent increase in temperature and hence more alarm, more urgency…more money for the scientists who conform.
Do like the use of the word ‘true’…in what is a highly political and subjective decision…
Defining a true ‘pre-industrial’ climate period
Scientists are seeking to define a new baseline from which to measure global temperatures – a time when fossil-fuel burning had yet to change the climate.
At the moment, researchers tend to use the period 1850-1900, and this will often be described as “pre-industrial”.
But the reality is that this date range came after industry really got going.
A new paper published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS), they suggest 1720-1800 might serve as a better “starting line”.
The most recent UK Met Office analysis indicates 2016 was “around 1.1C” above this 1850-1900 baseline.
But if this reference is wrongly set, and possibly now adjusted, it potentially changes how we view the policy targets.
Re-draw the baseline to a warmer or cooler starting point and it will take us either further away or closer to those targets.
Dr Hawkins’ group used these, together with their understanding of how factors such as greenhouse gases influence the climate, and some modelling, to try to gauge what global temperatures were doing during 1720-1800 – to in essence see if conditions were warmer or cooler than for 1850-1900.
And in their assessment, they were likely cooler.
Why not just move it back to the ice age? Hmm…oh, that wouldn’t work because it is pre the industrial revolution and we can’t blame climate change on the West man!
Great to have a ‘funny story’ in time for the weekend!
On the other hand, what if teams of jobsworths from the Georgian H&S had rushed round dousing all the warning beacons, lit as test runs to signal the Napoleonic invasion? Surely that would affected the figures?
Oh yes, and then there was Krakatoa…..
Trump has triggered the biggest policy and regulatory shift for the US energy industry in at least ten years but it has been largely ignored by the BBC who are desperate to convince people that climate science is settled. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all climate scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate. The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate.
The alarmist community has had almost three decades to prove its assumptions, and while it is plausible that there has been a small measure of warming, the disaster many predicted hasn’t occurred. Worse for them, it’s impossible to say with any degree of certainty that the warming that has happened — and quite possibly there’s been none at all — was caused by man. Earth’s climate has warmed and cooled throughout its existence. It’s part of the natural cycle. Yet the alarmist community persists and never acknowledges that it might be wrong. At the same time, when its members are pressed to prove that their one-way beliefs are indeed fact, they can’t do it.
Climate “Science” – the only science I know, that was invented for political reasons. That is why it is “settled”. No other science has achieved that status. Not even Physics.
If the government pays enough it can get the result it wants
Good point. Probably, Lysenko and eugenics beat climate to it, where political pseudo-science is concerned, but there is no doubt that politics in Washington DC created a rainstorm of funding for what was a perversion of a very young science. When Hubert Lamb retired from the Climate Research Unit, his creation, it did what it was supposed to do: research climate. The “global warming” scam rendered his work just about pointless, as “climate science” set itself to pretend to prove something that, blindingly obviously, is not true: the idea that humans are creating the climate for the whole planet.
Owen,
Lysenko is a good example of perverting science for political purposes. If we can have “fake news “, why not “fake science” ?
Ten years ago I used to debate with Astronomers about Global warming on Mars and Venus, but recently the debate has come to an end.
The reason is that the science has become settled on a formula which always works for calculating Global warming on Mars and Venus, and because Mars and Venus have Carbon Dioxide atmospheres, the formula implies by definition that Carbon Dioxide warming on Earth is as Donald Trump says, a hoax.
If they move their starting point back to the Little Ice Age, they think they’ll find that temperatures may have been colder back then. Well, there’s a surprise. We’re always being told that carbon dioxide is the driver of “global warming” and that the man-made component of that is key and has been rising sharply in recent decades. The last part of that is actually true, but, inconveniently for the alarmists, they can’t point to any correlation between rising CO2 and not-rising temperatures for nearly two decades.
They can’t quantify fossil fuel (by which they presumably mean coal) use for the eighteenth century, but it will have been negligible. The Industrial Revolution was underway in Great Britain, France and probably nowhere else in 1800 – not even the United States. The world’s population was a small fraction of what it is today. While some temperature records exist from the time, there are certainly no remotely reliable “global” ones. Watch out for some attempt to evoke Britain’s grimy cities, in yet another pretence that carbon and carbon dioxide are the same thing.
So we get the usual climate weasel:
“But if this reference is wrongly set, and possibly now adjusted, it potentially changes how we view the policy targets.”
Twenty words, two of them “possibly” and “potentially” and one that climatespeak favourite: “adjusted”.
“Dr Hawkins’ group used these, together with their understanding of how factors such as greenhouse gases influence the climate, and some modelling, to try to gauge what global temperatures were doing during 1720-1800.”
So forget boring, old CO2; it’s generic “greenhouse gases” now. I wonder why. Then we get the inevitable modelling (only “some modelling”, so that isn’t many million bucks frittered away), to try to work out “what global temperatures were doing”, in the absence of any temperature readings for virtually the whole of the globe. These charlatans conclude that temperatures “were likely cooler’, which I’d have been happy to speculate for them, for a few million dollars, but that’s what the temperatures may have been, not what they “were doing”, which may have been going up, or going down, or fluctuating. Towards the end of the Little Ice Age, my guess is that they were generally rising, without any help from the invention of the steam engine, but modelling is never going to be any replacement for facts and these are people who don’t use the facts, even when they are available.
Incidentally, the climate of Western Europe was severely affected, from 1783, by the catastrophic Laki eruption in Iceland. Most of the thermometers in use in the world at that time were in Western Europe.
Historically and geologically provable is the uncomfortable fact that global warming follows a rise in planetary CO2 rises not the other way round. Scientists of the ‘scientific consensus sect’ have never been able to square that particular problem for their Lady Bird book novels.
As Mark Steyn states, ‘actually so what if the planet is a little warmer anyway, it makes for a happier more productive place to live in’.
I think you mean that ice core data shows that CO2 levels rise about 800 years after a warming and that the Medieval Warm period peaked about 800 years ago. The reason for this is that there is a 800 year thermal lag in the deep oceans and that the Oceans dominate the system with a mass 275 times that of the Atmosphere, so the ratio of CO2 in the Atmosphere/Oceans is dependent upon the heat in the Oceans. Sea surface temperature can cause CO2 levels to vary within a year, but as we see with the so called peak, pause or hiatus. If CO2 levels are still increasing, then that would be in line with the 800 year correlation. Also, Astronomers have a problem with the exclusion of Henry’s Law from the circular assumptions of the carbon cycle pushed by environmental activist dominated Climate Change organisations such as the Royal Society.
According to Michael Mann’s infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ – used extensively by the IPCC in their 2001 report and shamelessly by Al Gore in his child-brainwashing film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ – surely it won’t really matter, as it proved temperatures were flat for the previous millennium (the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice age having conveniently been erased) and ‘climate change’ didn’t start to happen until the late 20th century?
More laughs from the ‘settled’ science, more lies for the BBC to broadcast on behalf of their 28gatemates.
I have observed references to three proofs that Michael Mann’s infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ is a fraud.
(1) Statistical
(2) Isotopes in tree rings
(3) Beck‘s proof of Jaworowski‘s suggestion that ice cores have CO2 levels about 40 percent lower than the original atmosphere.
But like everything on the BBC, censorship of facts mean that zombie science can survive if environmental activists tell the BBC what to think. While on the other hand, scientists have to support the hockey stick if they want money from the environmental activists who dominate Climate science organisations.
The most astounding aspect is the Censorship of simple facts that prove the issue irrelevant. There has been Atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods since the beginning of the 19th century. This shows that CO2 levels “FELL” in the 19th Century. http://www.biomind.de/realCO2
Also man-made CO2 has the same isotopic marker as Volcanic CO2, which equates to 4 percent or only 16 parts per million, while the natural variability of CO2 levels over the last 200 years is around 100 parts per million.
Between 1913 and 1996, only one of eight Solar Cycles was longer than the mean Solar Cycle length of 11.04 years, the last of these was the shortest Solar Cycle for more than 200 years, the strength of the Suns magnetic field more than doubled, the cosmic ray flux fell by 11 percent and there was a 8.6 percent reduction in clouds, cosmic ray flux since 2007 has been its highest since the 1930s. That’s what caused the Global warming scare.
Click to access Solar%20Cycle%20-%20Friis-Chr_Lassen-.pdf
I presume Dr Hawkins sacks scientists who prove to be competent enough to point out observational evidence. This is how these morons are able to come up with new ideas for the environmental activists who determine who gets government funds. Its why causational Climate scientists are scuttling about trying to find venues for a Climate science conference without any Environmental activists, Politicians and Journalists interfering with the scientific debate by censoring and lying about the science.
There are so many Climate scientists sent to Coventry, including almost all Causational Climate scientists, that they cant fill a Conference Hall in Coventry, so they went to a London venue.
So, Richard, it’s okay to use historical data from unreliable equipment (http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/methods.htm) when it comes to citing evidence to support your argument, but when it comes to low-accuracy weather station data which shows warming, we should bin it and walk away.
I doubt very much that you actually understand the real point of those examples you link to. The whole point of the CO2 graph comparisons is to demonstrate how conventional (and unreliable) equipment generally falls into line with more accurate observations. The trends are the same, and that’s important! Because the equipment can be as useless as you like – as long as it is consistently useless. Even if it is consistently useless, it will show the same trend!
Notice how the first graph “years” parameter conveniently ends at 1960 – exactly the point at which the Kaplan graph shows a sudden rise in CO2 concentration.
It’s the same old story of double standards – using science to disprove science. You’re deluding yourself.
Are you really so stupid, that you imagine that a single word of that twaddle makes sense?
Edward,
Do you have any qualifications in science ?
Yes, do you?
BSc in Zoology, but it does have some relevance to “Climate Change” . What are your qualifications ?
O Level Physics.
I did A-level Physics before university. I did not even bother with O-level.
I also have a PhD in Evolutionary Biology. Sorry, forgot to mention that.
Ok, well done ! How could you forget that ? What was your topic ?
Suffice to say that defending evolutionary biology from creationists has given me a good insight into the minds of sceptics across a whole range of subjects, including global warming.
Edward, the temperature Hockey Stick is a fraud because Isotopic evidence in tree rings showed that the temperature does not determine the width of tree rings. Climategate emails, hacked or leaked by an insider, verified that the tree ring data would not show the upturn in temperature after 1960. In fact, they showed a decline. So the contrivers said, “hide the decline” by replacing it with grafted on thermometer measurements.
Conveniently as regards the CO2 Hockey Stick, the IPCC has also stated that CO2 measurements made before 1958 are not reliable, while since 1958, the laboratory of Charles Keeling has come to own the global monopoly of calibration of all CO2 measurements for the Earth. So yes, the cut off of data from 1960 is a misfortunate production of the monopoly of Mauna Loa, Hawaii. And it is much easier to commit scientific fraud with a monopoly than with thousands of independent sources of data.
But otherwise Edward, you do sound confused.
Have you read the “Climategate” emails, Richard? I doubt very much that you have. Do you understand the purpose of tree ring records? Do you know how and why they are included in the observations and data sets when it comes to studying the climate?
Are you aware that some species of tree are not suitable for temperature references? Some species indicate higher than expected temperatures, some lower, when cross-referenced with thermometer data.
Do you understand cross-referencing? Do you understand anything?
“But otherwise Edward, you do sound confused.”
I think you meant to say confusing. Well, if I’m confusing you I do apologise, but I do tend to confuse (certain) people with simple facts.
I’ve already posted this link on another post, but there are never too many ways to get Donna Laframboise’s very well expressed views out to the world:
nofrakkingconsensus.com/2017/01/27/politicizing-science-at-the-us-dept-of-energy/
“Why not just move it back to the ice age?”
Which one? There have been many ice ages.
“…move the start point to where the temperature was much colder…”
Think about that for a minute. We move the start point back in time 50 years to 1800, “to where the temperature was much colder” to prove that global warming is a fact.
Well, yeah. You said it Alan. Unless you want to go back further to a random warmer year, such as 1769 and see how that compares with 1943. Take your pick.
Nobody disputes that the places which had thermometers in 1800 were, on average, a little bit cooler than they are today. Extending that worldwide by the use of models is impossible. Modelling is incapable of proving anything, because it is based on assumptions. Look at the article. It twice refers to “targets”. The people who created this report knew what they wanted to find before they started. There are innumerable factors of which they are unaware, so they have either ignored them, or invented numbers to represent them.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the report blames human “greenhouse gases” for, essentially, ending the Little Ice Age. The use of the term “greenhouse gases” seems a bit coy. It’s pretty obvious that there wasn’t much man-made CO2 around in George III’s time and also that it has precious little effect on the climate today, since recent CO2 levels have not resulted in increased temperatures, other than in the “adjusted” world of the charlatans, so which man-made “greenhouse gas” had this supposedly amazing influence on the climate in the eighteenth century?
“Modelling is incapable of proving anything, because it is based on assumptions.”
So the scientific modelling that demonstrates that the Earth orbits the Sun doesn’t prove anything therefore we should ignore it and believe that the Sun orbits the Earth instead?
“There are innumerable factors of which they are unaware, so they have either ignored them, or invented numbers to represent them.”
Talking of assumptions… Hmmn. NASA faked the moon landings, are covering up the pyramids on Mars with Photoshopped satellite images, and are inventing numbers to hide the fact that the world’s climate isn’t warming. They’re not kidding me those darned scientists! They won’t take me for a fool!
You think Copernicus needed “modelling”, to realise that the Earth orbits the sun? Your post is a pile of straw men, fit for a bonfire. That’s where your idea of science is headed.
I notice you can’t expand on the subject of “greenhouse gases”.
Yes, Copernicus would have used modelling! That’s the only way one can demonstrate that the Earth orbits the Sun. That’s my point.
He would have observed the movement of the planets and created a model of the solar system based on those observations.
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/books/Syntaxis/Almagest/node4.html
So, Edward, being a bit of a scientist like you are, what is man-made climate change – a hypothesis, a theory or ‘settled science’? And which do you have greater faith in as a means of global temperature measurement – satellites or weather stations? And whilst you’re at it, can you explain why all the climate models got it wrong with their temperature projections, as illustrated by arch-alarmist Trenberth’s famous hand-wringing quote in 2009 ‘We cannot account for the lack of warming and it’s a travesty that we can’t’?
Modelling based on Keplers Law was proven by past observations.
Modelling based on the Arrhenius method of calculating the Greenhouse effect always produces rubbish for Mars and Venus as well as for the Earth using data obtained from satellites from 1997 onwards.
It’s a data in, random result formula, rubbish out scenario, for Climate Change. The random results formula is why you wont find any precision in any results, which also have fatal problems if the CO2 levels rise, while temperatures fall.
Edward, I would advise you to stop revealing your low IQ with your unscientific emotional thought process.
Edward – I have no scientific background at all and so I am coming at this from the view of a person who has a more “basic education”
For years the press, the Government and “experts” and the MSM as well as telling us about the importance of global warming also told us (backed up with figures at the time) that migration into this country was not increasing and it was all a figment of our imagination.
As it turns out now this was all bollocks and as a population we were subject to a tissue of lies for years from both the MSM and the Government on this subject.
So you must understand that many of us carry a healthy degree of cynicism with us when hearing about global warming.
Further any measures to combat it have seemed illogical at best and downright impractical at worst. Are you really telling me that a farmer putting an expensive turbine up is going to make any appreciable difference to CO2 and as for recycling surely sending stuff back to Africa to be reclaimed achieves little. All that seems to have been achieved are loads of LA “green jobs actually achieving very little.
Even if global warming is increasing – why is there such a stony silence about reducing the population as surely that is at the root of everything. More people – more cars. more goods, more energy consumption etc.
I used to be very concerned about global warming etc. But in the end I reasoned if the Government and media have lied to me about important topics such as inward migration and other subjects of concern to me why should I believe them now about global warming.
If you want to maintain credibility – truth is not like picking apples off a tree where you can take the ones you like and leave the ones you dont like because no-one believes you anymore. And in all honesty that is what has happened. Like the boy crying wolf, the media “experts” and any science associated with it have lost all credibility –
They lied their heads off to us in the past about important stuff so why should we believe them now.
I am afraid if global warming is a real phenomenon then we are all buggered because no one believes the “experts” anymore.
You’re conflating lies about immigration with the scientific consensus on climate change. I sympathise with your view that the establishment is secretly coercing us into some kind of thought-control, which is why I’m here to highlight BBC bias and why I was very vocal in my support for Brexit.
But as someone who was once also a climate sceptic whilst at the same time dismissing claims that the Earth is only 6000 to 10000 years old, I came to the conclusion that the methods of argument employed by climate sceptics and “Young Earth Creationists” were identical.
That was a wake-up call for me because I realised that my scepticism wasn’t based on my own intuition but faith in my late grandfather’s views that climate change was down to purely natural events. And I’m talking about the 1980s, long before the MSM was full of climate change stories.
Please note though; I haven’t made any claims here. I have simply responded to the claim that scientists are lying to the world. I don’t believe they are. I don’t believe there is a conspiracy.
But that doesn’t automatically mean I get placed by you or anyone else into the opposing group. I remain open-minded.
Edward I have never placed you into any sort of group. All I was trying to do was trying to explain where I and many others are coming from. I take no pleasure in the possibility that global warming may actually be a significant factor in our climate but at the end of the day many of us just run out of energy fighting media lies – may sound crap but its true.
I’m with you on that one Oaknash. I’m at the end of my tether with the BBC – especially BBC East Midlands. I’m just not on board with the climate sceptics. We can’t always agree with each other.
This is a very interesting debate,thanks to all who have contributed above. Very worthwhile reading. Edward, I have disagreed with some of your ideas in the past but I have always found you interesting. I do not know what to make of this issue not having much knowledge of physics or chemistry etc. (I do have a degree in Political Science but that’s a fat lot of use in this case). Most people on this site are climate sceptics and I get the collective urge to go along with them but my experience says if you don’t understand something then don’t parrot the arguments. I learnt that in my Left days when I was increasingly expected to support various positions that I was unsure about but didn’t want to break solidarity with my comrades.
So it is a blow to my political pride but in this case I’m a “dunno”. However, when asked about climate change I simply say it is topic which Lefties use to avoid talking about overpopulation which if tackled would reduce the issue of man made climate change to insignificance.
I realize that this puts me offside with James Delingpole and his set but that’s how it is.
Love the debate folks. You really are a brainy lot
I always tell people “You don’t need to be a scientist to do science.”
Scientists are not a separate breed of human with super-powerful intellects. Scientists are only called scientists because that is what they are paid to do. Yes, they’re (usually) smart, but that’s only because they devote their time to being smart. But I bet Richard Dawkins would struggle to install a bathroom cabinet on the wall – especially if it was a tiled wall!
Taking the agnostic position for lack of understanding is commendable, when most climate sceptics kid themselves that man-made climate change is a myth – although they can’t seem to agree as to why!
Try looking up Cydonia – The Face on Mars. https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/the-face-of-mars-a-martian-mystery-turns-40/
Yes, I actually believed that there were pyramids on Mars built by the same aliens that built the pyramids in Egypt! What was I thinking? To be fair, you can’t blame me. I saw a lecture given by a “scientist” with impressive credentials at a university. Surely a “scientist” wouldn’t lie to us, would he? Well, he wasn’t lying so much as deluding, not only himself, but his audience. But I was taken in, hook line and sinker.
A few years later, when I saw images taken by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, the elated feeling I had – that I was one of the few people on Earth to be blessed with the rare knowledge of Martian pyramids – instantly turned to utter disappointment and anger. Some of the people I had been in constant conversation with regarding the Cydonia region of Mars reacted by claiming NASA were covering up evidence of ancient pyramids by altering (Photoshopping) the high definition images.
Of course, there’s no way to prove that NASA did not alter the images, just as there is no proof that NASA are not falsifying climate data. There’s also no proof that god doesn’t exist.
But if you take the position that (man-made) climate change is not happening and you believe that as an absolute truth, then you’re going one step beyond science itself and declaring a view that only a qualified God could lay claim to.
Science never claims to be 100% true or accurate. Science is always in a state of flux. Science is constantly updating itself.
As with the added information of higher resolution images of the surface of Mars, the adjustments made from new and more accurate methods to historical climate records gives us a more accurate picture of climate change.
Of course – for some – the new images of Cydonia are fabricated to hide the Martian pyramids, and the adjustments to historical temperature records through more accurate, up-to-date, estimations are “fiddling the books”.
You have to decide if what you believe is down to your own intuition or instinct, or if you believe something because someone else has convinced you into believing it.
You are responsible for your own thoughts and beliefs. Act responsibly!
There’s always one!
Thanks for sharing your pyramid belief with us Edward. I think we all gain in wisdom from past mistakes. I had a less extreme example which you may find curious. In my twenties I was a rabid atheist and joined groups like the Rationalist Association and the Sceptics association. They made good sense to me. But I did find them a bit narrow. After a while and gradually I dropped out. But now they have become more like a sect or religion itself.
I tried reading Richard Dawkin’s ‘The God Delusion’ it was soon obvious that he didn’t really know much about that area. But in the conversations I have with sceptic friends and
from what I read it seems that Dawkins has some sort of demi-god status. It is if “There is no god but evolution and Dawkins is it’s prophet”. At one gathering I go to his words are treated as sacred. When I recently pointed out that he had changed his mind on some minor point I was told I was talking nonsense but then the chief acolyte affirmed that I was correct . The Prophet had changed his view on this particular issue so that was alright.
I am a believer in evolution and have been so since I was five when I first started to oppose creationism. But this does not mean I think it is no purpose or conscious behind it.
But I am not a believer that science always corrects itself or that scientists are any more open minded than other people. Until recently we were told that freak waves didn’t exist. Nay, couldn’t exist. The law of Physics would not allow it! Then someone got the bright idea of turning the satellite instruments onto the oceans and it not only revealed
they existed, but there were in fact considerable numbers of them.
Then scientists across the world apologized with one voice…..Err actually no. Their silence was deafening.
So I think I may sit on the sidelines of the climate change debate for a while, or at least I can work out which of the lying bastards are telling the truth.
Anyone still pondering the conspiracy to conceal the truth about temperature records should read the following.
And before the willy waving starts, the author is a PhD high energy physicist who has been on the staff at both CERN and the Rutherford Appleton Lab.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7603
But, as he states on his blog, he ain’t no climate scientist.
Neither are you.
And neither are you, so what’s the point of linking to useless information?
What a ridiculous comment.
You seem to feel that your opinion as an evolutionary biologist has some relevance and you were quick to establish your credentials in that (unrelated) area. As a physicist, Dr Best’s observations seem as valuable as yours, if not more so. Your rejoinder that he is ‘not a climate scientist’ is just absurd. Neiher of you is. And what if you were? a ‘climate scientist’ is, almost by definition, someone who believes in AGW. The challenge to this belief system is probably going to come from outside its establishment, not from within.
I would have thought that the science of climate is mainly physics and chemistry.
It’s just physics. Physics trumps everything. Chemistry and biology are by-products of universal physical restraints (or boundaries). For example: The double helix in DNA structure is a physical trait of a biological substance. Similarly with hexagonal forms in the natural world – honeycombs and spider webs. Giant’s Causeway?
They give the impression that chemicals and biological substances have a mind of their own, but they don’t.
Boring but true.
There’s no such thing as a “climate scientist”. It’s just a label given to those scientists who work in the field of climate research.
I find this issue a difficult one (cos I haven’t read enough about it). Coming from a background of scientific research, I feel that it should always be open to critique and question other research results. Which reminds me of Mark Steyn pointing out a banner at a conference which read ‘The Debate is Over’. This is worrying. It should never be over, as new data and information could and should shape future views and research. And the problem, of course, IMHO is funding. I am sure many have seen, wondered about academics fudging their results, and how often this goes on as grants, bursaries, reputations rest on this. Once it becomes an economy on its own then I think we’ve had it – hence refusal to accept climate sceptics. Sorry for preaching to the converted!
Loobyloo, would you accept that ‘The Debate is Over’ regarding Darwinian evolution?
No I wouldn’t. I’d say there is a consensus that accepts Darwinian evolution, but if convincing evidence to the contrary is found then scientists should investigate it (fairy tales don’t count as evidence)
Edward writes: “.. the adjustments made from new and more accurate methods to historical climate records gives us a more accurate picture of climate change”
If you can tell us how to build this time machine in which people go back to the 19th century to ‘correct’ temperature readings, a wonderful career in physics awaits you.
The following, from Prof. Phllip Lloyd, illustrates the process, very well indeed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/28/homogenization-of-temperature-data-makes-capetown-south-africa-have-a-warmer-climate-record/
There is no dispute that historical records are ‘adjusted’, much in the way Prof Lloyd explains. Nor is there any doubt that the satellite data from UAH Hunstsville, the most accurate data we have, differ from the post-‘adjustment’ figures from NOAA.
If you can’t smell a rat, anosmia is a possibility and your GP should be able to refer you to a specialist.
“If you can tell us how to build this time machine in which people go back to the 19th century to ‘correct’ temperature readings, a wonderful career in physics awaits you.”
I don’t know, but if we could build a time machine perhaps we could go back and tell all the people in history that thunder and lightning are natural phenomena rather than a giant rolling a barrel across the sky?
You never know, we might discover that in the past the Sun orbited the Earth. We might discover that dinosaurs really did live with humans like in the Flintstones.
The possibilities are endless, so why not fill yer boots?
The past can be whatever bullshit past you want it to be.
Welcome Edward as Climate skeptics welcome free and fair debate about climate without namecalling or censoring.
#1 Authorities like the BBC don’t welcome such debate and elsewhere true-believer routinely don’t agree to public debate.
#2 Misrepresentation is a common fallacy : Skeptics are a broad church and those who are CERTAIN every aspect of Climate Science is bunk or certain that the next 2 years will see an ice age start are fringes. So it is wrong to talk about Moon landing hoaxers.
#3 Indeed CERTAINTY beyond available evidence is the hallmark of true believers. Well media play their emotions.
#4 Skeptics don’t generally deny the CO2 effect works in the lab , but the real world with all it’s feedbacks is different. That is why there is no established figure for CO2 sensitivity.
#5 Further places for discission
– Prof Judith Curry’s Blog https://judithcurry.com
– http://joannenova.com.au
– https://wattsupwiththat.com
– http://www.bishop-hill.net/unthreaded/
Stay away from propaganda sites which heavily censor comments and use ambush names like Skeptical Sciience .. And the Guardian
– Models are good when they consistently accurately predict the FUTURE not just past – IPCC climate models don’t
“Stay away from propaganda sites which heavily censor comments and use ambush names like Skeptical Sciience .. And the Guardian”
The hallmark of coercive ignorance. As creationists preach to their victims; Don’t listen to Richard Dawkins, he is Lucifer in the form of a gentleman. He will draw you in with fascinating truths. And you will submit to Satan.
Stay away
Don’t listen
Consume
Obey
That’s you, StewGreen. I will obey you.
There you go @Edward, we offered you civility and you sneered back ..very troll-like.
Edward sounds very much like Scotty
taffy,
Maybe, but where are all the others ? They have been quiet for weeks. Did Maxiboy ever get back with his examples of right-wing bias in the BBC ?
Grant
I think that the opinion of the majority of the posters on this site represent the majority of the people of Great Britain.
Hence, very few posters complaining about the right wing bias of Al Beeb .
The posters on this site are either trolls or Beeboids.
Beeboids are employees of Al Beeb who have a vested interest.
I see as well the misrepresentation trick I mentioned Edward resorts to distraction, by picking on my smallest point and ignoring all my others.
That wasn’t your “smallest” point, was it? That was actually a MAJOR point. In fact, that was a George Orwell moment!
I will quote again: “Stay away from propaganda sites which heavily censor comments and use ambush names like Skeptical Sciience .. And the Guardian”
You don’t ignore propaganda StewGreen. You embrace it and engage with it and you fish out the facts and the fiction. We could all ignore the BBC propaganda and live safe in the knowledge that multiculturalism is good and nutritious.
Same with climate change. You have to fish out the fact from the fiction.