AGW +2C? +6C? It has happened before.

[rushmc 23]

OH oh

Quote

The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend

Quote

The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”

and

Quote

The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

rushmc

OH oh

Quote

The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend

***The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”

and

Quote

The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/



Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller) is a global warming skeptic who runs the blog "Real Science." Goddard originally blogged only using a pseudonym, but revealed his real identity in a June 27, 2014 blog post.[1] He has a BS in geology from Arizona State University and a Master's degree in electrical engineering from Rice University. He gave a presentation, "The Emperor's New Climate", at the 9th annual International Conference on Climate Change by The Heartland Institute in 2014.[2]

And who is the Heartland Institute????


The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Chicago. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

The Heartland Institute is the primary American supporter of climate change denial.[2][3][4] It regularly rejects the scientific consensus that global warming poses a significant danger to the planet[5] and that human activity is driving it,[6] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[7]
What are their positions???
2 Policy positions 2.1 Tobacco regulation
2.2 Global warming
2.3 Budgetary
2.4 Education
2.5 Healthcare
2.6 Hydraulic fracturing


Funding[edit]

The Heartland Institute no longer discloses its funding sources, stating that it had ended its practice of donor transparency after experiencing the organized harassment of its donors.


In 2010, MediaTransparency said that Heartland received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[145][dead link] Between 2002 and 2010, Donors Trust, a nonprofit donor-advised fund, granted $13.5 million to the Heartland Institute.[146] In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.[101] The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was "$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade".[147]

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including $736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[148][135] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[79] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that it would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[148][149][150] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[148]

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris,[38]:234 Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly.[102] State Farm Insurance, USAA and Diageo are former supporters.[151] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link...between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."[86] The Heartland Institutes opposes legislation on passive smoking as infringing on personal liberty and the rights of owners of bars and other establishments.[152]

As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation had contributed approximately $300,000 to Heartland. The Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it.[153] The St. Petersburg Times described the Heartland Institute as "particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart."[153] Heartland has stated that its authors were not "paid to defend Wal-Mart" and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the approximately $300,000 received from the Walton Family Foundation.[153]

In 2012, a large number of sponsors withdrew funding due to the leak of their climate change strategy and the controversy over their billboard campaign. The Institute lost an estimated $825,000, or one third of planned corporate fundraising for the year.[128]

[billvon 3,078]

>The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US
>temperature data is now fake.

Now you're back to a Type I (i.e. "there's no warming! it's all a lie!") It seems like only yesterday you were a Type II.

But alas, I am wrong. It was a month ago. RushMC, June 25: "I have always said, the climate changes. This is what it does."

We will see where you twist to next month.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend

Okay. Goddard has me interested.

Quote

The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”

SeeYa.

I actually like a lot of Goddard's work. I think it's instructive and useful.

Problem with him is that he engages in this sort of hyperbole. Seriously. Breathtaking fraud? He feels compelled to use terms like this. His graphs on the difference between recorded and adjusted temperatures are handy. And while there is a valid explanation, he's right that the data is to a large extent conjured.

But he takes it too far and overplays his hand. This makes him easy to dismiss. Why? Because, like the alarmists, he attacks the MOTIVATIONS. Meaning that he tosses in his own red herring because it's not about the data he has. Again, there are reasons for this smothing and gap filling. It has pluses and minuses.

But Goddard is much like Dawkins - he could be far more effective if he wasn't such a goddamned troll. MEaning all he ever preaches to is the choir.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

And of course, there are others who have zero response to what Goddard wrote and instead decide to be GODDARD and attack the goddamned motivations instead of actually thinking in a cogent manner.

Ad hominem. The most popular logical fallacy. See, Jeanne, you've just tacitly admitted that everything he said was true because you have no argument against it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US
>temperature data is now fake.

Now you're back to a Type I (i.e. "there's no warming! it's all a lie!") It seems like only yesterday you were a Type II.

But alas, I am wrong. It was a month ago. RushMC, June 25: "I have always said, the climate changes. This is what it does."

We will see where you twist to next month.

Of course the climate changes
It has been doing so since long before man
NOTHING I have said changes that
never has

Of course you need to support bad data

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/26/ocean-heat-new-study-shows-climate-scientists-can-still-torture-data-until-the-data-confess/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,078]

>Of course you need to support bad data

From the article:

"Bottom line: To manufacture the new warming, Cheng et al. adjusted, tweaked, modified (tortured) subsurface ocean temperature reconstructions to the depths of 700 meters starting in 1970. . . . Climate scientists have not only “found” the missing heat by tweaking their reconstruction methods, they’ve manufactured more heat than the models show by torturing the reconstructions even more."

An interesting study published in PLOS:

=================
The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

Stephan Lewandowsky ,
Gilles E. Gignac,
Klaus Oberauer


Published: October 2, 2013
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075637

Abstract

Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe. Conversely, opposition to genetically-modified (GM) foods and vaccinations is often ascribed to the political Left although reliable data are lacking. There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a “hoax.”

Methodology/Principal findings

We conducted a propensity weighted internet-panel survey of the U.S. population and show that conservatism and free-market worldview strongly predict rejection of climate science, in contrast to their weaker and opposing effects on acceptance of vaccinations. The two worldview variables do not predict opposition to GM. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, predicts rejection of all three scientific propositions, albeit to greatly varying extents. Greater endorsement of a diverse set of conspiracy theories predicts opposition to GM foods, vaccinations, and climate science.

Conclusions

Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested. We highlight the manifold cognitive reasons why conspiracist ideation would stand in opposition to the scientific method. The involvement of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science has implications for science communicators.
====================

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

And of course, there are others who have zero response to what Goddard wrote and instead decide to be GODDARD and attack the goddamned motivations instead of actually thinking in a cogent manner.

Ad hominem. The most popular logical fallacy. See, Jeanne, you've just tacitly admitted that everything he said was true because you have no argument against it.

I thought that was fairly obvious....... Follow the money captain.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested.

Which you do regularly

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Amazon

***And of course, there are others who have zero response to what Goddard wrote and instead decide to be GODDARD and attack the goddamned motivations instead of actually thinking in a cogent manner.

Ad hominem. The most popular logical fallacy. See, Jeanne, you've just tacitly admitted that everything he said was true because you have no argument against it.

I thought that was fairly obvious....... Follow the money captain.

Okay. I followed it.

Now, what do you think of what he said? Or are you one of those pro-sciencey science types that blinds yourself to contrary information?

Perfect example of what I am talking about when I say politics has become the adjunct for science. Just like here. Facts don't mean shit. Opinion and interpretation doesn't mean shit. Because oooohh! He must be a bad man.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Okay. I'll call it out.

Both of the extreme sides on this issue look at whatever fits their narrative. Period. Both sides of this issue would rather attack the person bringing up valid points than address the points.

Both sides rely on hyperbole.

Both sides rely on logical fallacy.

Both sides call opinions facts.

Both sides are so full of shit that working through it is becoming an insufferable task.

And it is because both sides have much to gain or lose from what political reaction will be. Just in the last few days, retired GISS head James Hansen wrote that the reason why the Antarctic sea ice is increasing is because of the freshwater melt from Antarctica. I personally think that Kallend should be credited for this because he mentioned it long ago as a theory and Hansen ripped him off.

My problem is that Hansen doesn't explain why the alleged massive melt in Greenland and elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere isn't having the same effect.

But why is Hansen predciting that 3/4 of the world's major cities will be underwater by 2100? TO make money, that's why. For speaking honoraria.

It's like running for president. The job is crappy, but the job of "ex president" is pretty damned nice. This is what is going on. People doing what they are doing and saying what they are saying NOT for altruistic reasons but to stoke their own damned egos.

Which is why there is no middle ground that is acceptable. Reason dies. And ad hominem, as well as the whole gamut of logical fallacy, becomes the rule. Because such things are brilliant political tools that are proven to work.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

You dont get the data you want/need?

Just keep adjusting it

Quote

In the carefully-planned build-up to the Paris “climate” conference whose true purpose is to establish an unelected and all-powerful global “governing body” (they’re no longer brazenly calling it a “government” as they did in the failed Copenhagen draft of 2009, but one can imagine what they’re thinking), the three longest-standing terrestrial temperature records – HadCRUt4, GISS, and NCDC – have all decided to throw caution to the winds.

Even though the satellites of RSS and UAH are watching, all three of the terrestrial record-keepers have tampered with their datasets to nudge the apparent warming rate upward yet again. There have now been so many adjustments with so little justification – nearly all of them calculated to steepen the apparent rate of warming – that between a third and a fifth of the entire warming of the 20th century arises solely from the adjustments, which ought to have been in the opposite direction because, as McKitrick & Michaels showed in a still-unchallenged 2007 paper, the overland warming in the datasets over recent decades is twice what actually occurred.

The three terrestrial datasets are no longer credible. The satellites now provide the only halfway reliable global temperature record. And it shows no global warming for 18 years 5 months (UAH) and 18 years 6 months (RSS), even though approximately one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since 1997.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/04/hadcrut4-joins-the-terrestrial-temperature-tamperers/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,108]

Meanwhile, away from denier sites like wattsupwiththat:

www.weather.com/science/environment/news/worlds-glaciers-ice-disappearing-fastest-pace-history

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,078]

Quote

World's Glaciers Are Melting Faster Today Than Any Time in History
Published Aug 4 2015 10:25 AM EDT
weather.com

They're not melting. OK, so they are, but it has nothing to do with mankind. OK maybe it does, but glaciers are cold and scary and bad. If we melt them, then we will have water and arable land to feed the starving children. Why do climate change alarmists want children to starve?

[rushmc 23]

billvon

Quote

World's Glaciers Are Melting Faster Today Than Any Time in History
Published Aug 4 2015 10:25 AM EDT
weather.com

They're not melting. OK, so they are, but it has nothing to do with mankind. OK maybe it does, but glaciers are cold and scary and bad. If we melt them, then we will have water and arable land to feed the starving children. Why do climate change alarmists want children to starve?

Starving children is what your so called solutions will do

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,078]

>Starving children is what your so called solutions will do

Exactly! Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Starving children is what your so called solutions will do

Exactly! Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?

Great
So you think the EPA solutions are bs too

Progres

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

Quote

World's Glaciers Are Melting Faster Today Than Any Time in History
Published Aug 4 2015 10:25 AM EDT
weather.com

They're not melting. OK, so they are, but it has nothing to do with mankind. OK maybe it does, but glaciers are cold and scary and bad. If we melt them, then we will have water and arable land to feed the starving children. Why do climate change alarmists want children to starve?

What is remarkable to me is that people will not only will believe stuff like "world Glaciers are melting faster today than at any time in history" but that otherwise knowledgeable people will say it and print it.

The problems associated with this are manifold. First, no. It's a falsehood. Glaciers "melted" faster for a few thousand years back when the last "ice age" ended. Folks. We have been out of an "ice age" for a while now. Meaning that there isn't even much ice left to melt. 12k years ago when NYC was under a mile of ice there was a much more rapid melt.

Secondly, it is a perversion of the process. The glacier is smaller, ergo it melted. No. It's far from that simple. There are many ways that a glacier can "ablate," such as by sublimation (this is why Glaciers can shrink even when the temperature is below freezing) or by simply sliding downhill. Those big fat masses of ice that calf off into the ocean? That glacier just lost four Manhattans worth of ice and it didn't happen by melting.

Yes, they can also melt. Which happens in every temperate summer.

On the other hand, there is yet another side of the whole "equilibrium" part. That is called "accretion." How are Glaciers made? Well, snow falls. It compacts into ice under its own weight. Thus building up a glacier. What happens when there isn't enough snowfall to maintain the glacier through its ablation process?

Oh, yeah. The glacier must have melted and it must have been human activity that caused it, right? Because science says glaciers melt.

Once again, where fact and rationality and, yes, junior high school level scientific knowledge fall victim to propaganda headlines.

Are glaciers abating throughout the world? Yep. Are these headlines always seen in July and August? Yep. If glaciers didn't ablate would the Greenland icepack be 35000 feet high right now? Yes.Is most of Antarctica considered a desert? Yes. Is it a desert because it is so cold that the air cannot hold any water vapor to precipitate? Yes. So if Antarctica warms then would we expect to see more accretion of glaciers? Yes.

Because science.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

A very good article

Quote

This brings us to the point of my expanded analysis of the BEST temperature data set. Figure 2, below, shows the high and low temperatures for the period of 1870 to mid-2014. The data set starts earlier than 1870, but the uncertainty is so great in the early data that I didn’t feel it contributed much. [Should the reader be interested, there is a graph of land temperature data starting about 1750 at this link: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/global-land ] The main thing worth noting is that the high temperatures were increasing rapidly in the two decades before my graphs start and the lows were coming down from a high in about 1865. The pastel shading reflects the 95% uncertainty range, which becomes imperceptible by the present day. The green, smooth line is a 6th-order polynomial fit of monthly temperature data that have been smoothed. Rather than attempt any further smoothing of the once-smoothed data, I chose to model the low-frequency response with a polynomial least-squares fit trend-line. This approach to characterizing recent temperature changes is more sophisticated than drawing straight lines through the data, where one is free to choose the start and stop times subjectively; subjective time-periods allow for conscious or unconscious mischief.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/an-analysis-of-best-data-for-the-question-is-earth-warming-or-cooling/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

OK
NOW, we have given up on the adjusted data showing there was no pause, and we are going back to making excused for the pause?

Really?


I wish the alarmists would settle on one story lie


I mean line....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/13/another-excuse-for-the-pause-trenberth-says-internal-climate-variability-masks-climate-warming-trends/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,108]

rushmc

OK
NOW, we have given up on the adjusted data showing there was no pause, and we are going back to making excused for the pause?

Really?


I wish the alarmists would settle on one story lie


I mean line....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/13/another-excuse-for-the-pause-trenberth-says-internal-climate-variability-masks-climate-warming-trends/

Most of us don't post stuff from Salon or Daily Kos because it is obviously biased.

It's high time you recognize that wattsupwiththat is also biased and therefore lacking in credibility.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

kallend

***OK
NOW, we have given up on the adjusted data showing there was no pause, and we are going back to making excused for the pause?

Really?


I wish the alarmists would settle on one story lie


I mean line....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/13/another-excuse-for-the-pause-trenberth-says-internal-climate-variability-masks-climate-warming-trends/

Most of us don't post stuff from Salon or Daily Kos because it is obviously biased.

It's high time you recognize that wattsupwiththat is also biased and therefore lacking in credibility.

But But But.. his billionaires said its ok.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***OK
NOW, we have given up on the adjusted data showing there was no pause, and we are going back to making excused for the pause?

Really?


I wish the alarmists would settle on one story lie


I mean line....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/13/another-excuse-for-the-pause-trenberth-says-internal-climate-variability-masks-climate-warming-trends/

Most of us don't post stuff from Salon or Daily Kos because it is obviously biased.

It's high time you recognize that wattsupwiththat is also biased and therefore lacking in credibility.

Says you


Actually
It is a very respected sight

Execpt for radicals who bash it off handedly

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,108]

rushmc

******OK
NOW, we have given up on the adjusted data showing there was no pause, and we are going back to making excused for the pause?

Really?


I wish the alarmists would settle on one story lie


I mean line....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/13/another-excuse-for-the-pause-trenberth-says-internal-climate-variability-masks-climate-warming-trends/

Most of us don't post stuff from Salon or Daily Kos because it is obviously biased.

It's high time you recognize that wattsupwiththat is also biased and therefore lacking in credibility.

Says you


Actually
It is a very respected sight

Execpt for radicals who bash it off handedly

No it is NOT respected by any academics or climate professionals. It may be respected by the likes of Glenn Beck and Marc Rush, but that's not saying much. And it doesn't even attempt to hide its bias. Willard Anthony Watts even proclaims himself a denier - you can't get more biased than that.

Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a former radio weatherman and non-scientist, and a paid AGW denier. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather man. Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by coal and oil companies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

rushmc

******OK
NOW, we have given up on the adjusted data showing there was no pause, and we are going back to making excused for the pause?

Really?


I wish the alarmists would settle on one story lie


I mean line....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/13/another-excuse-for-the-pause-trenberth-says-internal-climate-variability-masks-climate-warming-trends/

Most of us don't post stuff from Salon or Daily Kos because it is obviously biased.

It's high time you recognize that wattsupwiththat is also biased and therefore lacking in credibility.

Says you


Actually
It is a very respected sight

Execpt for radicals who bash it off handedly
EXCEPT for those who know how to research bullshit when they see it.
I would say then that someone's "sight" is rather myopic.

DO you actually look into WHO is behind your info.. and WHAT that means when you go to a web SITE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

Connection with Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute published Watts' preliminary report on weather station data, titled Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?[53] Watts has appeared as a paid speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change the Heartland Institute have sponsored since 2008.[12]

Watts says that he approached Heartland in 2011 to ask for help finding a donor to set up a website devoted to presenting NOAA's data as graphs that are easily accessible to the public.[13][65] Documents obtained from the Heartland Institute in February 2012 revealed that the Institute had agreed to help Watts raise $88,000 for his project.[66][67][68] The documents state that $44,000 had already been pledged by an anonymous donor, and the Institute would seek to raise the rest.[12] Watts has written that, aside from the help in funding this project, the Heartland Institute does not pay him a regular salary or fund his blog.[13][69]