[Prosthetic Conscience]

Going back to Richard Muller in that last video posted, he was, at the time, concerned that climate scientists weren't being open with the methods they used, or when (as was the case with the 'hide the decline' stuff he's going on about in it) they decided to use one data set rather than another (in that case, the scientists decided to use actual thermometer measurements after 1960, rather than tree ring growth, because the calculations from tree ring growth since then don't agree with the thermometer and satellite measurements. Using the most direct measurements is hardly a sneaky trick).

So Muller set up the Berkeley project, to re-examine all the raw data and the processing of it. Their conclusions were:

“There were aspects of prior studies that could potentially impair data quality, and we did such a re-examination in our studies. Our broad conclusion: the data are indeed adequate to reach the conclusions that we reached (which are substantially the same, except for some details, with the conclusions of the other groups (NASA, NOAA, HadCru).
...
When we turn off all adjustments, we find a slightly GREATER global warming than without! The main effect comes from the ocean data, which is the most difficult to adjust. Take out adjustments, and global warming is stronger; but that is not scientifically justifiable.”
...
Global warming is real, about 1.5 Celsius for land measurements over the past 250 years. (Note that Berkeley Earth goes substantially further back in time than do the other studies.

The match to the record of log(CO2) is excellent, better than we obtain with pure math functions (e.g. exponential, parabola) or other indications of world growth (e.g. world population).

The correlation with solar variations is very small, less than 5% (at the 95% confidence level). This effectively rules out solar variability as a cause. We draw a stronger conclusion here than does the IPCC because our data goes back 250 years, and that allows the stronger correlation.

The correlation with volcanic activity is strong, but only in short-lived events. Our analysis clearly shows that the volcanic component did not contribute to the warming trend.

We can eliminate all theories that are capable of making predictions, namely, the solar theory and the volcanic theory and the orbital change (Milankovitch) theory. Note that we are also experts on the orbital theories (having written a technical book on the subject) and can rule them out too. Of course, speculations that there is something else going on which just happens to match the CO2 records can not be ruled out, but it begs the question of why the “unknown” happens to match CO2. Moreover, from simple back-of-the-envelope equations developed long before the warming was seen, we believe that what we are seeing is in the right ballpark to be due to CO2 with water vapor feedback.

“Based on this, we see no competition to the conclusion that global warming is small (1.5 C land over 250 years) but real, and caused by greenhouse gas increases. Speculation that is it not is not based on science in the sense that the competing theories don’t make predictions or testable patterns of behavior. They are not “falsifiable” in the sense of Karl Popper’s fundamental criterion for distinguishing science from non-science.

“Note that we do not claim that “climate change” including droughts, storms, etc is caused by greenhouse gases. We only address global warming. Moreover, as we have written in our memos and Op Eds, the current “pause” in warming is not statistically significant when looked at in light of the kind of variability that has been observed over the last century, likely caused (as we show in one of our published papers) by variations in the flow of ocean currents.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/prof-richar ... or-science

That's from 2015; global temperatures since then have made it even clearer there has been no meaningful 'hiatus', 'slowdown' or 'stop' in global warming.

[Sivad]

The Pielke complaints were amusing.

They basically boil down to “they did not accept my editing suggestions so they must be political conspirators!”.

So Pielke is the one of the lead editors of the chapter, he's editing an assessment of the science and so in order to provide a fair and balanced assessment he includes relevant and substantive criticisms of the assessments made by the chief editor of the report, Thomas Karl. Karl has a junior editor go behind Pielke's back and re-edit the chapter by cutting out all criticism of Karl's work and they don't even bother to inform Pielke of this or send him the revised draft. The stated reasons for the edits, to make it "punchier" , "shorter" , and "more readable", are completely ludicrous considering that it's a scientific assessment that will be used to determine policy. Obviously the priority when drafting a scientific assessment is that it should be comprehensive and accurate but those jokers were all about a "tight", "punchier" easy read with a good "flow" and in order to get that they have to cut out all criticism of their own work.

Pielke points all this out and insists that the assessment include relevant caveats and criticisms but he's overridden by Karl(who has a massive conflict of interest to begin with as the report he's in charge of editing is assessing his own work) and so Pielke resigns and the babbitts win and go on to publish a fraudulent assessment. That's how this shit works.

[Sivad]

Going back to Richard Muller in that last video posted, he was, at the time, concerned that climate scientists weren't being open with the methods they used, or when (as was the case with the 'hide the decline' stuff he's going on about in it) they decided to use one data set rather than another (in that case, the scientists decided to use actual thermometer measurements after 1960, rather than tree ring growth, because the calculations from tree ring growth since then don't agree with the thermometer and satellite measurements. Using the most direct measurements is hardly a sneaky trick).

Deleting anomalous proxy data and replacing it by grafting on instrument data is fraud and Muller says as much in his talk. He says he would never read a paper published by any of those jokers ever again. He's says they completely discredited themselves by what they did.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Deleting anomalous proxy data and replacing it by grafting on instrument data is fraud and Muller says as much in his talk. He says he would never read a paper published by any of those jokers ever again. He's says they completely discredited themselves by what they did.

Timestamp when you claim he "says as much", please. First time I've ever heard he calls it "fraud". As I point out, he has since said their conclusions are correct.

[Sivad]

Timestamp when you claim he "says as much", please. First time I've ever heard he calls it "fraud". As I point out, he has since said their conclusions are correct.

I'll quote him directly:

"What they did, is they took the data from 1961 onward from this peak and erased it. What was their justification for erasing it?"

"The justification would not have survived peer review inany peer-review in any journal I’m willing to publish in."


But they had it well hidden and they erased that and they replaced it with temperature data going up. And let me show you how cleverly this was done. Get back to this plot –there it is. They added the same temperature data to three different plots giving the illusion that there were three different sets going up. And they smoothed it ...So that’s what they did. And what is the result in my mind? Quite frankly, as a scientist,I now have a list of people whose papers I won’t read anymore.You’re not allowed to do this in science. This is not up to our standards. I get infuriated with colleagues of mine who say: “Well, you know it’s a human field. You make mistakes.“Then I show them this. And then they say, “No that’s not acceptable”.
https://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com ... -21-v1.pdf

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Nothing there about 'fraud', or anything close to it - 'true', 'false', 'lie', 'wrong', 'correct' or things like that. He called it "unacceptable", but that's not what "fraud" means. So, he said "I’m now leading a study to redo all this in a totally transparent way", and, as I pointed out, he studied the data, and came to the same conclusions the climate scientists did.

Now, of course, one might be the kind of keyboard warrior who complains about the tyranny of the scientific method. But, in that case, one wouldn't complain just because one scientist said one graph was not produced to the peer review standards of the scientific establishment. Would one?

[Sivad]

Nothing there about 'fraud', or anything close to it - 'true', 'false', 'lie', 'wrong', 'correct' or things like that. He called it "unacceptable", but that's not what "fraud" means.

Are you joking? He says they "had it well hidden" and that it was "cleverly done" and earlier in the talk he says "they deceived the public and they deceived other scientists". Deceitful subterfuge is fraud, there's no other way of looking at it. And the kicker is how they "added the same temperature data to three different plots giving the illusion that there were three different sets going up" And not only did they not publish the raw data, they refused to release it even after an FOIA request was submitted.

Let's be honest here, if a skeptic got caught pulling anything even remotely like this you would be all over that shit, the alarmists would be crying fraud from one end of the internet to the other. You know it's fraud, it's undeniable fraud so just call it what is and we'll move on.

So, he said "I’m now leading a study to redo all this in a totally transparent way", and, as I pointed out, he studied the data, and came to the same conclusions the climate scientists did.

So what? The BEST analysis was shoddy and it doesn't warrant its conclusions. He didn't perpetrate a fraud or anything but he certainly didn't settle the science either.

Now, of course, one might be the kind of keyboard warrior who complains about the tyranny of the scientific method. But, in that case, one wouldn't complain just because one scientist said one graph was not produced to the peer review standards of the scientific establishment. Would one?

I don't know what the fuck that's supposed to mean but there's no getting around the fact that those CRU babbitts are just a bunch of deceitful frauds.

[MarkESmith]

If it is a conspiracy, wouldn't the FBI and CIA be in on it? Most of the AGW browbeating comes from the findings and research of scientists funded heavily by government grants.

Asking government bodies to investigate the findings of scientists who are already in their pocket seems like a conflict of interest.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you already control the FBI and the CIA, why do you need to co-opt climatologists in order to lie for you?

[blackjack21]

Are you joking? He says they "had it well hidden" and that it was "cleverly done" and earlier in the talk he says "they deceived the public and they deceived other scientists". Deceitful subterfuge is fraud, there's no other way of looking at it. And the kicker is how they "added the same temperature data to three different plots giving the illusion that there were three different sets going up" And not only did they not publish the raw data, they refused to release it even after an FOIA request was submitted.

Let's be honest here, if a skeptic got caught pulling anything even remotely like this you would be all over that shit, the alarmists would be crying fraud from one end of the internet to the other. You know it's fraud, it's undeniable fraud so just call it what is and we'll move on.
...
So what? The BEST analysis was shoddy and it doesn't warrant its conclusions. He didn't perpetrate a fraud or anything but he certainly didn't settle the science either.

As I've said before, the data handling on video game status is more professional than what these "scientists" are doing. It's pretty bad. HadCRU was a real eye opener for me. I already knew it was a fraud at that point, but how sloppy they were was shocking. NASA has some good coding practices. They're all still using FORTRAN.

[ckaihatsu]

On the global warming situation:


Kiribati - a drowning paradise in the South Pacific _ DW Documentary

[Sivad]

It's pretty bad.

These people want to pretend that the scientists don't have personal and professional interests in hyping this shit, they pretend there are no institutional interests on the part of universities and government agencies, they pretend that the broader liberal establishment doesn't tie into to the academic establishment through grants and endowments, and they pretend the liberal establishment doesn't have an interest in massive regulatory expansion and the power to direct wealth transfer on a global scale. These people have to pretend so hard just to keep their bullshit aloft that they've lost touch with all reality and they're now as delusional as the most paranoid raving conspiratards.

[Sivad]

If you already control the FBI and the CIA, why do you need to co-opt climatologists in order to lie for you?

Are you really asking why they don't just rule by fiat? Seriously? You don't know why they have to invent bogus threats to manufacture consent?

[Pants-of-dog]

That is correct.

I have no idea how your weird conspiracy theories are supposed to work.

[Sivad]

That is correct.

I have no idea how your weird conspiracy theories are supposed to work.

given that you are a gulagist you might actually be genuinely confused. You're all like why don't they just throw people who doubt the establishment orthodoxy into gulags? But I would just remind you that even the most hardcore gulagist regimes rely on copious amounts of bullshit and propaganda to keep their populations on board with the agenda.

[Pants-of-dog]

given that you are a gulagist you might actually be genuinely confused. You're all like why don't they just throw people who doubt the establishment orthodoxy into gulags? But I would just remind you that even the most hardcore gulagist regimes rely on copious amounts of bullshit and propaganda to keep their populations on board with the agenda.

This is not an explanation as to why the climate change hoax was created despite the fact that the conspirators already control the world.

If you provide no explanation, I will assume you have none.

[Rancid]

The world melting is going to a problem for a lot of people around the globe. However, it will not be a problem for the very wealthy, or even the moderately wealthy depending on geography.

[Sivad]

This is not an explanation as to why the climate change hoax was created despite the fact that the conspirators already control the world.

It wouldn't be because I was addressing an entirely different stupid objection. That was an explanation for why they would have to exaggerate the problem, why climate change is such a convenient crisis for the liberal elites is a separate question.

If you provide no explanation, I will assume you have none.

I've explained it repeatedly and you just refuse to address it. And I don't even have to assume, I know you got nothing but lame straw man bullshit. The only thing you can do is duck the issue and deny the obvious.

[Sivad]

The world melting is going to a problem for a lot of people around the globe.

Every single one of these retarded malthusian doomer prophesies from the last 50 years have spectacularly failed. From the Club of Rome to Paul Ehrlich to James Hansen, none of them have gotten it right. But every time one of these hysterical alarmists dreams up the next looming collapse people start to panic like idiots and beg the liberal technocrats to take total control of our resources and our economies, tax the shit out of us, and manage every aspect of global civilization.

In 1988, a Washington Post reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 or 40 years in the future. Hansen reportedly looked out a window and said New York City’s “West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”

“And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change,” he said.

Hansen also predicted that global warming would cause a drastic rise in crime in the Big Apple, because “you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

[Rancid]

Every single one of these retarded malthusian doomer prophesies from the last 50 years have spectacularly failed. From the Club of Rome to Paul Ehrlich to James Hansen, none of them have gotten it right. But every time one of these hysterical alarmists dreams up the next looming collapse people start to panic like idiots and beg the liberal technocrats to take total control of our resources and our economies, tax the shit out of us, and manage every aspect of global civilization.

Am I being an alarmist? I'm just saying that poor people will be most screwed by sea level rise.