Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

Status
Not open for further replies.

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
Without having to address anything else you've said, this alone makes your claim technically unfalsifiable. See Vtacs earlier long post about consensus being impossible in reality; any claim about the previous temperature of the earth beyond human measurement is based on models and subjective evaluation of secondary or worse data sources
? Oh my god.

Whatever you want to believe you maybe said. Sorry but, even I don't do that much spin. The hockey stick is not falsifiable, it's based on a model of reconstructed temperatures in part. And because it can't be falsified it should be disregarded in the same way my argument is to be. Sorry but, even I don't do that much spin.

The falsified argument has already been used by my side regarding models, as they can't be falsified because they are possibilities.
 
Happycamper,

Durden

I am Jack's title
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.
How is the hockey stick not falsifiable? If the hockey stick graph is false, it can be shown through observation of the methods used in constructing it or by experimentation in trying to replicate the results. The very fact that scientists are talking about it being wrong and doing more and different research is indication that it is falsifiable, that they believe they can prove that it is false through additional observation and experimentation. People could certainly make claims about the hockey stick graph that were not falsifiable, but the graph is of itself a tool in relaying information and is by it's very nature falsifiable.

There is no spin involved. You made an assertion of what would constitute evidence to you, those assertions you made were not falsifiable.
 
Durden,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
Models are and will remain possibilities, therefore they are not falsifiable. (As I said before the falsification argument has been used on models. I have seen this argument used by scientists (who are on my side), to ask why are incredibly expensive policy decisions based on models which are by nature not falsifiable).

Even when actual observations differ from the models it still does not make any difference, as they could still be a possibility.

For example the tree ring data on the hockey stick diagram from 60's onwards (obviously if it was not cut out) shows a falling trend in temperatures, when actual observations show a rise in temperatures. So even though actual observations diverge from the modelled tree ring data, it makes no difference as it is still a possibility and as such is not proven false by the divergence. Therefore, if you can't even prove a model to be false with actual observations how can you prove it to be false?

What did Mann et al. do? Just cut out the Tree ring data from the 60's onwards, and made the model put a lot of weight on the reconstructed tree ring data, which produced a smoothing effect. Therefore erasing the previous known warm and cold periods.

However the erroneous data can and has been highlighted and also pointed out that specifically the tree ring data created the smoothing of the previous warm periods, even the mini ice age seems to have gone. There are known issues with using tree ring data to reconstruct temperatures, especially the trees they used. Personally I believe the Greenland ice core data (before it gets cooked in the hockeystick) is more likely to indicate what the previous climate was with warmer and colder periods than this 'cooked' graph.

Edit:changed to make it clearer it was my opinion.

Edit: to include the Ice core NOAA graphs http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
 
Happycamper,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
From the Telegraph
Climate change rhetoric spirals out of control
Christopher Booker says that the Government must be absolutely sure that their data on climate change is accurate.

By Christopher Booker
Published: 4:58PM GMT 21 Feb 2009

Comments 54 | Comment on this article

It was another bad week for the "warmists", now more desperate than ever to whip up alarm over an overheating planet. It began last weekend with the BBC leading its bulletins on the news that a "leading climate scientist" in America, Professor Chris Field, had warned that "the severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed". Future temperatures "will be beyond anything predicted", he told a Chicago conference. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had "seriously underestimated the size of the problem".

The puzzle as to why the BBC should make this the main news of the day only deepened when it emerged that Prof Field was not a climate scientist at all but an evolutionary biologist. To promote its cause the BBC website even posted a video explaining how warming would be made worse by "negative feedback". This scientific howler provoked much amusement and derision on expert US blogs, such as Anthony Watts's Watts Up With That since "negative feedback" would lower temperatures rather than raise them. The BBC soon pulled its video.


Related Articles
Climate change chicanery
The world has never seen such freezing heat
Global cooling hits Al Gore's home
Climate change: The sun and the oceans do not lie
Climate change: The elements conspire against the warmistsThis was followed on Sunday by yet another outburst from the most extreme of all the scientists crying wolf on global warming, Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In The Observer he launched his most vitriolic call yet for the closing down of the coal-fired power stations which are the world's main source of electricity, repeating his claim to a British court last year that the new coal-fired plant at Kingsnorth will alone be responsible for "the extermination of 400 species".

"Coal-fired power plants are factories of death," wrote Hansen, "the trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains". This deliberate echo of the trains carrying Jews to Nazi death camps recalled how the more extreme warmists like to equate sceptics on climate change with "Holocaust deniers". But such overheated language seemed somehow at home in the newspaper which in 1996 solemnly predicted that by 2016 half a million Britons would be dying each year from having eaten BSE-infected beef.

Later in the week sceptics were struck by an admission from Professor William Schlesinger, a lead author for the IPCC. Since one of the enduring myths of our time is that the case for global warming is supported by "the world's top 2,500 climate scientists" on the IPCC, Schlesinger was asked in a public debate how many of its contributors are in fact climate experts. The best he could come up with was that "something on the order of 20 per cent have had some dealing with climate". (This will not of course stop the BBC calling any old evolutionary biologist or economist who supports its views a "leading climate scientist").

Finally there was the strange case of the vanishing Arctic ice. Just how far Arctic sea-ice is melting or growing is one of the issues which arouses most passionate interest in the global-warming debate. Observers were therefore startled last week to see the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing a very dramatic drop in sea-ice cover, 500,000 square kilometres of ice suddenly disappearing in the depths of the Arctic winter.

When this was queried by a puzzled Anthony Watts, the NSIDC somewhat shamefacedly admitted that a problem had developed with one of its satellites. The data for the previous 45 days was found to be so faulty that it had been withdrawn. But inevitably this provoked the question as to why quality control seemed to be so poor on one of the world's leading official sources of climate data that it had taken an outside observer to point out that something was wrong,

This is by no means the first time that data on which the official case for global warming rests have had to be corrected, some of the more notorious instances involving temperature data supplied by Dr Hansen's GISS. Yet this is one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC itself relies. When politicians plan measures to "combat climate change" costing tens of trillions of dollars, we can at least expect them to ensure that their figures are halfway believable.

Chinese pull a fast one in space race as EUs 'pigs with gold trotters remain earthbound

There has been another wondrously bizarre twist to the unending farce of the EUs favourite vanity project, Galileo. This is the multi-billion euro programme designed to give the EU its own rival to the US GPS satellite system, which provides a free positioning fix to ships, aircraft, Satnav owners and other users all over the world.

Although I have regularly reported on this joke project since 2001, almost the only time it has excited much media interest in Britain was when, in 2007, the late Gwyneth Dunwoody described it as not one pig flying in orbit, this is a herd of pigs with gold trotters, platinum tails and diamond eyes. The Commons Transport Committee, of which she was chairman, had produced a report suggesting that Galileo would cost British taxpayers at least 1.7 billion, and was so pointless that it might as well be scrapped.

No episode in the story was more curious, however, than the deal signed in October 2003, whereby the Chinese government agreed to pay 200 million euros for a 20 per cent share in Galileo, to be spent on developing infrastructure and ground stations based on European technological know-how. The EU was over the moon, thinking that this would cement in China as its partner in a project always partly intended for military use, allowing it both to operate independently of the US.

A first sign that all was not well came when the Chinese, having got on with their part of the deal, using EU know-how, were shut out from top-level management of Galileo on security grounds. But, having obtained the technical information they wanted, they have powered ahead with a satellite system of their own, Compass. They are now so far advanced, and Galileo has slipped so far behind schedule, it seems certain that the Chinese satellites will be in place long before the EU system.

Furthermore the Chinese now plan to operate on the same wavelengths that the EU had earmarked for Galileo. Since their satellites will get there first, they will be able to lay claim to ownership of them. The EU would thus only be able to use the wavelengths with Chinese permission.

Having robbed the Common Agricultural Fund of

1 billion in a desperate effort to pay the soaring bill for Galileo, the Europeans are said to be very angry, since this removes just about the last conceivable excuse for proceeding with their absurd project. The Americans, having followed the whole saga with bemused irritation, are said to be laughing themselves silly.

MEPs prove not at all the presidents men

As an eloquent and drily humorous Euro-sceptic, the Czech President Vaclav Klaus is making the most of his countrys six-month presidency of the EU. In the European Parliament on Thursday he delivered what my Daily Telegraph colleague Bruno Waterfield called on his blog a storming speech the best I have ever heard in that place. Having spent much of his life under Communism, Klaus courteously questioned the way in which the EU, like any other one-party state, has no place for opposition and is fiercely intolerant of dissenting views. The fact that his remarks were greeted with boos and jeers, followed by 200 MEPs walking out, neatly confirmed his point.

Marks & Spencer fail to go green

In a bid to earn Greenie points, Marks & Spencer last week announced a plan to source all its electricity from renewables. As a next step, nPower is to supply it with 2.6 terawatt hours of electricity from windfarms and other renewable sources over six years. A quick sum shows that this equates to 40 per cent of the entire current annual output of Britains 2,000 wind turbines. Pretty impressive, until one realises that the electricity will in fact be supplied by the National Grid, most of it made from dirty coal, carbon-intensive gas and nasty nuclear. In other words, this not just a load of cobblers, this is M & S cobblers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...e-change-rhetoric-spirals-out-of-control.html
 
Happycamper,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
I love this bit:
Later in the week sceptics were struck by an admission from Professor William Schlesinger, a lead author for the IPCC. Since one of the enduring myths of our time is that the case for global warming is supported by "the world's top 2,500 climate scientists" on the IPCC, Schlesinger was asked in a public debate how many of its contributors are in fact climate experts. The best he could come up with was that "something on the order of 20 per cent have had some dealing with climate". (This will not of course stop the BBC calling any old evolutionary biologist or economist who supports its views a "leading climate scientist").
I know how quick Rayski is to point out when a scientist is not a climate scientist.
 
Happycamper,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
stickstones said:
^^^
What a crock of shit. First burden the schools with propoganda to show, then burden the teachers with a 60+ page document to clean up the mess of the propoganda. Doesn't surprise me in the least that someone tried to feed this to school children. As a parent of three, I am constantly checking in with my kids to see what they are pushing them in school. I remember all the anti-drug stuff they pushed when I was a kid.
The government ensured it got sent out to all the schools, beacuse they seemingly thought it was great. How much co2 and trees did it cost to send the 60 page A4 book out to every single school?
 
Happycamper,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
Marks & Spencer fail to go green

In a bid to earn Greenie points, Marks & Spencer last week announced a plan to source all its electricity from renewables. As a next step, nPower is to supply it with 2.6 terawatt hours of electricity from windfarms and other renewable sources over six years. A quick sum shows that this equates to 40 per cent of the entire current annual output of Britains 2,000 wind turbines. Pretty impressive, until one realises that the electricity will in fact be supplied by the National Grid, most of it made from dirty coal, carbon-intensive gas and nasty nuclear. In other words, this not just a load of cobblers, this is M & S cobblers.
This might get missed but I love this part too. M&S is Marks and Spencer, it's one of the main highstreet retailers in the UK. It's like a department store with a Food Court. The food is nice, not everyone can afford to shop there for food.

Not sure if cobblers needs explanation? let me know because I can explain (it's also taking the piss out of M&S Tag line)
 
Happycamper,

rayski

Well-Known Member
stickstones said:
^^^
What a crock of shit. First burden the schools with propoganda to show, then burden the teachers with a 60+ page document to clean up the mess of the propoganda. Doesn't surprise me in the least that someone tried to feed this to school children. As a parent of three, I am constantly checking in with my kids to see what they are pushing them in school. I remember all the anti-drug stuff they pushed when I was a kid.
The study guide--The climate change film pack Guidance for teaching staff--is more than just a 60 page correction. The guide was online before the Court ruled that a hard copy should be included in the Climate Change Pack. And it took the judge just a little over 2 pages to list the nine errors to be addressed. I guess Gore isn't the only one who exaggerates.

The judge accepts 4 propositions that "...are supported by a vast
quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great
majority of the worlds climate scientists.":

(1) global average temperatures have been rising
significantly over the past half century and are likely to
continue to rise (climate change);
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made
emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide
(greenhouse gases);
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant
adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and
governments can take which will help to reduce climate
change or mitigate its effects.

You can find the decision here:http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22161.pdf
The 60 page guide is here:http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/CC Final guidance 4oct.pdf
 
rayski,

rayski

Well-Known Member
Happycamper said:
Rayski, be careful you might get attacked for not putting your link in for the reference.
Oh no, of course you won't be, carry on no problem :/
Just wanted to see if you would notice the omission. I guess you couldn't miss it after being stung. I edited the post so I should be safe now.
 
rayski,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
There is quite clearly manipulation and fraud in this article. For example, here is the map in the article showing the purported weather stations:

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0110_Figure-32.jpg

But its from 1997 - 13 years ago. Lets look at a current map, including the changes:

http://i44.tinypic.com/23vjjug.jpg
[gif - takes time to load]

Why the deliberate misrepresentation?

The answer is right on the Yale home page: the heavily pro-AGW Grantham Foundation funds this site. Since it is bought and paid for, its editors bend over backward to propagandize for Grantham. The proof is right in this post
Interesting comment taken from the link

(and at least you are acknowledging that Gore 'exaggerates'. Rayski, these are baby steps in the right direction ;) )
 
Happycamper,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
Greenhouse Warming Scorecard
A really interesting look to compare models to actual results
The tables below provide a comparison of model predictions with actual observations and
provide a yes-no-undetermined score of whether the models are successful or not. Later in
listings there are pro and con discussions of various topics and these are not scored.
http://icecap.us/docs/change/GreenhouseWarmingScorecard.pdf

About the Author:
Douglas V. Hoyt is a solar physicist and climatologist who worked for more than thirty years as a research scientist in the field. He has worked at NOAA, NCAR, Sacramento Peak Observatory, the World Radiation Center, Research and Data Systems, and Raytheon where was a Senior Scientist. He has conducted research on issues related to climate change, changes in solar irradiance on all time scales, and the sun-climate connection. His most recent publication is the book "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change" . He has published nearly 100 scientific papers on solar irradiance variations, the greenhouse effect, atmospheric transmission, aerosols, cloud cover, sunshine, radiative transfer, radiometers, solar activity, sunspot structure, sunspot decay rates, and the history of solar observations.



He has received no funding from any fossil fuel entity or government entity. His work is influenced only by the data and the study of the scientific literature.
 
Happycamper,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
There are lots of stories coming out. I missed these very interesting ones yesterday. These appeared in the Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
The headline is : UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri 'got grants through bogus claims'.
In india it's kicking off about the himalyan glacier. Apparently it's Glaciergate. People are calling for Pachauri's resignation. These people had been wrongly led to believe there would be serious implications for their water supply in the very near future.

And then this makes it a double whammy : ''UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters''.
It's another very concerning article. It starts ''THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. ''
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

Edit: Stickstones it's a really long article to copy and paste, it is 2 pages long. If you go on times site from first link and search Jonathan Leake. It should bring up this as something he wrote so you can click on it hopefully.
 
Happycamper,

stickstones

Vapor concierge
^^^
I can't get the second link to work.

If all this shit keeps up, you'll have to jump to the other side of the fence to be the crazy one!
 
stickstones,

Konrad_Zuse

New Member
Frickr said:
Climategate, what are your thoughts people? those of you who dont know, a hacker broke into an internet database of emails from the top climate scientists with instructions and "tricks" to make global warming more dramatic then it is. when its been proven we are on a global cooling cycle.

i urge everyone to research this themselves, and know that the media in our country is doing all they can to keep this out of the news with the upcoming confrence in copenhagen.
There is like a 2 hour special on National Geographic that shows what's really happening, and explains how we are in a heating/cooling cycle that lasts 300,000 or so years. The ice ages we have experienced? I consider the Earth a stomach. You eat some spicy foods and yeah your stomach might be upset, but it will heal. That's my opinion on the whole thing, but yeah I would check out this video, it's very interesting. It says we are actually getting colder, not hotter. I don't know about you, but Florida is getting snow now, and rarely has it ever. Summers are even colder. Global warming is just another thing they are using to brainwash people. It's the same with 2012, and even the Y2K bullshit.
 
Konrad_Zuse,

Frickr

Well-Known Member
since 1997 in our area of the country, we havent had hardly any snow, and have seen above average temps. last year, and this year have been the worst 2 winters ive seen. record amounts of snow all across the state. last summer was also very cool for our area. usually july and august have alot of days that are 100+ i tihnk the warmest it got was 95 this last summer. also have had snow on the ground since november. with more coming. most other winters ive lived throuhg have al had a little snow, but it melts right away, and we just have a brown landscape. 1998 was also the peak of the drought in our area of the country too.

you can tell the weather changed just by looking at the crops. growing up in a farming community where wheat was the main cash crop, you see how devistating heat can be. i remmeber a few years where the wheat crops werent even knee high. but over the past few years, the crops have slowly been getting better. last year was record crop year. up over the waist in wheat. so if the planet was still warming, why would we have one of the coolest summers, 2 of the worst winters?

dont you think that the people who's livelyhoods is completely based around the weather to pay attention to this stuff? bring up global warming to an old farmer some day, you will get your ear talked off on how its the biggest scam around. global warming doesnt cause 2 record winters, and a record cool summer... thats the complete opposite of what all these "leading scientists" are saying.
read the farmers almanac sometime. you would be suprized how accurate it is with their weather predictions.

now i agree on the subject that we do need to change our habits, and be more aware of our natural resources, and nature in general. but i dont think we need to implament taxes, and other punishments under the scare tactacs of climate change, global warming or whatever you call it now days. there are better ways we can go about this whole problem then putting our wonderful government incharge of this.

so unless the crops suddenly turn back to how they were in the summer of 1998, i wont worry. if we are having record crops right now, then i think nature is doing the right thing.
 
Frickr,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
One of the 'stories' I am hearing about the extreme cold weather is that this idea that the Artic is blasting out it's cold and is leaving itself alarmingly, unusually warm. Tom's link from youtube a few pages ago tell the chilling story.

The acusations have been made that this is due to global warming.

However just to point out this is also a cycle, just not a very frequent one to be this extreme. Yes the cold has come from the Artic, and yes the Artic was warmer than average from December onwards. The last time it happened so extremely was in 1950's, but it is predictable when it gets going. The warmer than average temps in the artic started in December, exactly as it said it would according to text books written years ago on this subject.

Also according to text books, the extreme cold and snow is likely to come back. (after a milder period like we are experiencing in the UK now), probably Feb time.
 
Happycamper,

Purple-Days

Well-Known Member
I wonder???

There were glaciers 10,000 years ago. And it seems there have been
good times recently, in the scope of hundreds of years. But some swings have been pretty drastic in those times. We have lived, and not learned, it seems. Or, learned and forgot.

So, can we stabilize the world climate? I have serious doubts. I believe we are changing it, but I think we cannot change our momentum in a significant way until it is 'do or die'. I think many will die before we do. :2c:
 
Purple-Days,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
Tom there are still glaciers around now. Loads and Loads. Some of them are actually growing. However, the main trend is most are not advancing. Personally I prefer living in a world where they are not growing.

They can only ever be retreating or advancing. They can't remain static, locked in time, which really I think is what all this drama is about. Everyone expects climate to stay the same, but it's always changing. It hasnt stayed the same for millions of years.

However specifically regarding the Glaciers, the IPCC the other day were exposed as getting the melt date of the Himalayan Glacier extremely wrong, by about 300 years! This is what Glacier gate is about in India at the moment, because all the people living in fear their water supply might be cut off in 20-30 years found out 'by accident' they had been misled by the IPCC.

The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds
The thing is, apparently it's not just a little over sight. The people involved who have been working on this project and getting the grants were more than expert enough to have even just looked at the size of the glacier to realise the melt date was drastically wrong. Unfortunately it does not look like just an over sight anymore.
 
Happycamper,

Purple-Days

Well-Known Member
You see what I mean... BUt I am too vapedtospell vaped.... Back at you later.:D

BTW I have been to 'glaciers'. But, only in the Northern Hemisphere.

And I meant semi-hemi-spheric glaciation. Ice age stuff. Not against your premise that these folks are crooks and are pumping snake oil. Just not sure, and I want to be on the right side, even when I am long gone. :2c:
 
Purple-Days,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
Konrad_Zuse said:
There is like a 2 hour special on National Geographic that shows what's really happening, and explains how we are in a heating/cooling cycle that lasts 300,000 or so years.
Can you find the name of the documentary, so i can maybe keep an eye out on youtube for it? Cheers.

I have a growing belief that the planet is in part self balancing. (specifically I mean with more clouds because of more evaporation of water due to higher temps cause cooling as they prevent more heat reaching the Earth)

More edit:
The alarming thing is evidence seems to point to ice ages beginning very quickly. Over the matter of a few months.
 
Happycamper,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
Purple-Days said:
You see what I mean... BUt I am too vapedtospell vaped.... Back at you later.:D

BTW I have been to 'glaciers'. But, only in the Northern Hemisphere.

And I meant semi-hemi-spheric glaciation. Ice age stuff. Not against your premise that these folks are crooks and are pumping snake oil. Just not sure, and I want to be on the right side, even when I am long gone. :2c:
Ach, I see.

I agree.

This comes from both sides, because there are some very dodgy people on my side that I wish were not.

It does make it hard to see what the truth is. I guess, is anyone 100% certain because of all this stuff that gets in the way?
 
Happycamper,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
The Tide is definitely turning in the main stream media. Certainly in the UK it is anyway, and you know how biased the UK has been to this AGW.
Scientists exaggerated impact of climate change, says Government's chief adviser
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...on.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo#ixzz0doerhjaO

(He does manage to squeeze this in at the end though :
Professor Beddington insisted that uncertainty about some aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction: Some people ask why we should act when scientists say they are only 90 per cent certain about the problem.)
However, overall it's still not the expected 'business as usual' type of article.
 
Happycamper,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
People could certainly make claims about the hockey stick graph that were not falsifiable, but the graph is of itself a tool in relaying information and is by it's very nature falsifiable.
The hockey stick was created to make a claim.

A lot of scientists have found the Hockey Stick really hard to swallow. (LOL) And I'm talking about a lot of the 'top 2500' ones. (Well the 20% or so who have had dealings with climate, but you know who I mean)
 
Happycamper,
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom