Jezcoe
September 10, 2019, 10:26pm
243
That is quite a silly metric to deny what everyone else has accepted as happening.
amadeus:
thinkingman:
Jezcoe:
thinkingman:
Jezcoe:
thinkingman:
Jezcoe:
Yeah. Not what is going on here at all.
There is a ton of evidence and decades worth of research that show that there is a warming trend. Even more research shows that it is caused by humans.
Linking to one non published, non peer reviewed white paper on daily caller doesnât erase that.
theres well over a ton of hysteria, scare mongering, wrong models and wrong predictions and decades of politics involved too.
good reasons to consider other scientific data
It isnât scientific data that they are bring to you, but a rejection of how everyone models this.
They donât offer their own model to show how they are right⌠they just say that everyone is wrong.
Not a compelling argument.
ok so thatâs wrong.
the article references a study that is linked, and full of data
if you dispute it (you never adequately answered if you do), please say where
otherwise you remain open to their results rather than dismissing them out of hand
like all the cool kids do, i know
edit: link back to article: https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes⌠I read the study.
I have even posted snippets from it.
the data that it uses is to show that the data canât be trusted.
They do not employ and methodology of their own to show why they are correct, just how everyone else is wrong.
Other than that⌠there is nothing to dispute.
they do so indeed describe their methodology, and premise
you dismiss it out of hand. of course
you donât dispute, you dismiss, and deny.
Iâve perused the article. There is no way any of you have read all of the links. Itâs just a smear of internet links and a hodgepodge of ideas. It has no relationship to a scholarly article. If this is your standard for scholarly research, you have not been around many reports of scientific research. Naturally, your are welcome to your opinion. In addition, you have a habit of asking questions that no poster here is qualified to answer, including you. This is as disingenuous way of conducting a discussion as I can imagine.
if itâs so âhodgepodgeâ then you should easily be able to dispute their premise and results but of course, nothing.
care to be specific?
i bet you support AOCâs position tho
WildRose
September 10, 2019, 10:31pm
245
Itâs a fixed measure of where we were then and where we are now.
Jezcoe:
I dismiss it⌠because it is dismissible.
The paper is not peer reviewed, not published and is counter factual.
it is a report with a scientific point of view, and unless you can dispute the facts, you demonstrate that you ignore and dismiss contrasting positions to the msm narrative
Jezcoe
September 10, 2019, 10:43pm
247
There isnât really a premise to refute.
They simply state that the adjusted data sets used by NOAA, NASA, and HADLY CRU are wrong because ⌠reasons.
This actual peer reviewed paper, published in a real journal by actual scientist address those reasons here.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640
Basically⌠they took pristine data from 10 years worth of new monitoring stations and compared it to the old adjusted data and found that it was well within statistical boundaries.
During the period of overlap between the USHCN and USCRN networks, we can confidently conclude that the adjustments to the USHCN station records made them more similar to proximate homogenous USCRN station records, both in terms of trends and anomalies. There are no systematic trend biases introduced by adjustments during this period; if anything adjusted USHCN stations still underestimate maximum (and mean) temperature trends relative to USCRN stations.
So⌠there is that.
madasheck:
Thatâs a strange bit of âlogicâ you use there since whether or not China is a major producer, a reduction in fossil fuels by the U.S would help. There you go using bumpersticker words like âkneejerkâ. Itâs not. The article below clearly says that the U.S. making a move wouldnât entirely solve the problem. But your post admits that a U.S. move would be beneficial. And thereâs no reason why we shouldnât do something even if someone else doesnât. We shouldnât wait for China.
The final paragraph of the link below:
Thus, the most pressing need in the world today is to ensure that countries can develop without a heavy reliance on coal and other fossil fuels, because this is the reason for the status quo.
China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined
Hope you are addressing Guvnor because i am not admitting nor agree with any such thing.
I think we are doing just fine on climate and donât need a move. You need to talk to China and India if you believe in MMGW. If that would make you feel better about the climate.
WildRose
September 10, 2019, 10:52pm
249
No, it shows they were fabricated.
Jezcoe
September 10, 2019, 10:54pm
251
New data with better monitoring confirms the old data.
FAKE!
Yeah⌠great argument.
Jezcoe:
There isnât really a premise to refute.
They simply state that the adjusted data sets used by NOAA, NASA, and HADLY CRU are wrong because ⌠reasons.
This actual peer reviewed paper, published in a real journal by actual scientist address those reasons here.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640
Basically⌠they took pristine data from 10 years worth of new monitoring stations and compared it to the old adjusted data and found that it was well within statistical boundaries.
During the period of overlap between the USHCN and USCRN networks, we can confidently conclude that the adjustments to the USHCN station records made them more similar to proximate homogenous USCRN station records, both in terms of trends and anomalies. There are no systematic trend biases introduced by adjustments during this period; if anything adjusted USHCN stations still underestimate maximum (and mean) temperature trends relative to USCRN stations.
So⌠there is that.
wrong because ofâŚâreasonsâ
what reasons? this is what were trying to get at here
you still blithely dismiss, just because they opposed
they are not the only ones either
WildRose
September 10, 2019, 10:59pm
254
They adjusted the old data to suit their own desires, new data cannot confirm or deny observations that were made years or decades ago.
thinkingman:
Jezcoe:
There isnât really a premise to refute.
They simply state that the adjusted data sets used by NOAA, NASA, and HADLY CRU are wrong because ⌠reasons.
This actual peer reviewed paper, published in a real journal by actual scientist address those reasons here.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640
Basically⌠they took pristine data from 10 years worth of new monitoring stations and compared it to the old adjusted data and found that it was well within statistical boundaries.
During the period of overlap between the USHCN and USCRN networks, we can confidently conclude that the adjustments to the USHCN station records made them more similar to proximate homogenous USCRN station records, both in terms of trends and anomalies. There are no systematic trend biases introduced by adjustments during this period; if anything adjusted USHCN stations still underestimate maximum (and mean) temperature trends relative to USCRN stations.
So⌠there is that.
wrong because ofâŚâreasonsâ
what reasons? this is what were trying to get at here
you still blithely dismiss, just because they opposed
they are not the only ones either
Reasons or feeelings? Hmmm
Jezcoe
September 10, 2019, 11:00pm
256
thinkingman:
Jezcoe:
There isnât really a premise to refute.
They simply state that the adjusted data sets used by NOAA, NASA, and HADLY CRU are wrong because ⌠reasons.
This actual peer reviewed paper, published in a real journal by actual scientist address those reasons here.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640
Basically⌠they took pristine data from 10 years worth of new monitoring stations and compared it to the old adjusted data and found that it was well within statistical boundaries.
During the period of overlap between the USHCN and USCRN networks, we can confidently conclude that the adjustments to the USHCN station records made them more similar to proximate homogenous USCRN station records, both in terms of trends and anomalies. There are no systematic trend biases introduced by adjustments during this period; if anything adjusted USHCN stations still underestimate maximum (and mean) temperature trends relative to USCRN stations.
So⌠there is that.
wrong because ofâŚâreasonsâ
what reasons? this is what were trying to get at here
you still blithely dismiss, just because they opposed
they are not the only ones either
Yeah man⌠read their white paper⌠it isnât that long and it is mostly links to other blogs and pictures.
It doesnât take too long.
declaring it is âwrongâ doesnât not make it âwrongâ
Jezcoe
September 10, 2019, 11:01pm
258
Ummmm⌠if the new data is in line with the old adjusted data⌠then that means that the methods of correcting the raw data was within statistical tolerances.
So that means that they figured it out and confirmed it with new information⌠not the other way around.
Jezcoe
September 10, 2019, 11:03pm
259
I provided an actual peer reviewed paper that addresses the âproblemsâ that they were writing about in the white paper.
If they would have come up with a different methodolgy that showed why they are right and everyone is wrong, then it would be something⌠but they just say everyone is wrong because they are wrong.
It is not a good paper.
WildRose
September 10, 2019, 11:04pm
260
Of course it is, it is adjusted to fit the desired outcome.
amadeus
September 10, 2019, 11:45pm
262
thinkingman:
amadeus:
thinkingman:
Jezcoe:
thinkingman:
Jezcoe:
thinkingman:
Jezcoe:
Yeah. Not what is going on here at all.
There is a ton of evidence and decades worth of research that show that there is a warming trend. Even more research shows that it is caused by humans.
Linking to one non published, non peer reviewed white paper on daily caller doesnât erase that.
theres well over a ton of hysteria, scare mongering, wrong models and wrong predictions and decades of politics involved too.
good reasons to consider other scientific data
It isnât scientific data that they are bring to you, but a rejection of how everyone models this.
They donât offer their own model to show how they are right⌠they just say that everyone is wrong.
Not a compelling argument.
ok so thatâs wrong.
the article references a study that is linked, and full of data
if you dispute it (you never adequately answered if you do), please say where
otherwise you remain open to their results rather than dismissing them out of hand
like all the cool kids do, i know
edit: link back to article: https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
Yes⌠I read the study.
I have even posted snippets from it.
the data that it uses is to show that the data canât be trusted.
They do not employ and methodology of their own to show why they are correct, just how everyone else is wrong.
Other than that⌠there is nothing to dispute.
they do so indeed describe their methodology, and premise
you dismiss it out of hand. of course
you donât dispute, you dismiss, and deny.
Iâve perused the article. There is no way any of you have read all of the links. Itâs just a smear of internet links and a hodgepodge of ideas. It has no relationship to a scholarly article. If this is your standard for scholarly research, you have not been around many reports of scientific research. Naturally, your are welcome to your opinion. In addition, you have a habit of asking questions that no poster here is qualified to answer, including you. This is as disingenuous way of conducting a discussion as I can imagine.
if itâs so âhodgepodgeâ then you should easily be able to dispute their premise and results but of course, nothing.
care to be specific?
i bet you support AOCâs position tho
Sorry. I donât know what AOCâs position is. But Iâd be happy to link you any number of thousands of articles on the nature of climate change. Maybe you can dispute all of those. Thatâs your MO, thinking dude, and itâs disingenuous.
