The problem with biased science is that it is polarizing rather than informing the public.
Distributing propaganda instead of empirically obtained knowledge seems to have that effect.
Time has come to eliminate government science funding for politically hot topics until the obvious bias in studies has been reduced.
+100 PA.
That’s the thing Mosh et al just can’t appreciate. Constant nonsense data fiddling is just that – fiddling. It’s the creation of functional product, an alt-history.
I am getting the feeling this nonsense Karl paper is climate science jumping the shark. They’re written a novel and called it a dataset.
Only in climate science.
Moshe says Ross is wrong.
What’s the likelihood of that? Slim to non-existent.
Willard, “Wait, Cap’n. Are you suggesting that unless we include daily sea ice concentration analysis or buoy measurements of open water SST in the Arctic Ocean, no statistical analysis can never make any physical sense?”
No, I am saying there is considerable uncertainty as to what energy that temperature actually means. It makes physical sense when you include the realistic uncertainties. As far a thermo goes, tropical SST plus allowance for ice coverage would be more meaningful, but you have to use what you have. An average ocean temperature would be the best thermo reference, that only varies by a degree or so, but it isn’t exactly an easy thing to determine.
I posted that below, but see how the 0-100 meter temperature anomaly is right in the middle of the pack. That is one gut check. With a planet scale problem I think lots of gut checks are a good thing.
————————————-in global warming.
——————————-e—————————
——————————s—————————-
—————————–u—————————–
————————a———————————-
——————-p—————————————
Here lies the —————————————–
The AlMightO AMO:
The acceleration in SLR:
OHC:
I figure 98.5% by August…
aplanningengineer: “Looks like they are calling me a denier. “
I wouldn’t let it worry you!
Being sneered at and insulted by the type of scientifically illiterate buffoons that scoff at Freeman Dyson (I kid you not!) is a badge of honour!
No all I have to do is reject your approach and not use your data set; there are other surface temperature analyses that I regard as more reliable.
Perhaps I am missing something. The uncertainty ranges don’t seem to be correct.
The 1998-2014 trend has almost four times the uncertainty of the the 1951-1997 trend? Really?
My understanding was all the satellite thingies, automated weather stationy things, and the thousands of bob-in-the-ocean thingies gave us better information in modern times. If they don’t reduce uncertainty why do we waste money on them?
Congress is trying to increase NOAA’s National Weather Service funding because the satellite fleet is decaying. EPA has nothing to do with this goal. Congress wants to cut back climate funding across the board, including not funding Karl’s proposed National Climate Service, but it is an elusive goal, because there is no climate budget per se. USGCRP used to publish a detailed breakdown of each agency’s climate funding but it stopped several years ago. From a budget perspective climate has gone underground.
I will be generous and say that it appears they have committed deliberate premeditated blatant self-inflicted confirmation bias, yoey. The climate science needed that headline. Paree will still be a flopee.
Well, time has come to eliminate the EPA. The enforcement powers can be moved to other agencies or the states, The environment is clean enough and the EPA is a major tool of social progressive mischief.
The EPA in social progressive’s hands is like giving dynamite to a small child. The solution is to dispose of the dynamite.
Plus, if we start eradicating government agencies that misbehave – the ATFE would be the next on the list – there are many benefits, including:
1. Smaller less oppressive government.
2. Reduced taxes and regulatory cost.
3. The abject lesson of the eradication of some agencies may induce the surviving agencies to straighten up and fly right.
“those evil climate scientists are committing fraud?”
Joseph,
Do you know if they are? Do tell what you know.
Andrew
“Anyone who isn’t a warmer or a catastrophist risks being called a denier.”
No risk about it, it’s a racing certainty.
Joseph | June 5, 2015 at 2:27 pm |
The real question is are the Karl adjustments justified, or is it a case of politically motivated headline hunting?
Don, you mean those evil climate scientists are committing fraud?
“Don, you mean those evil climate scientists are committing fraud, again?”
Fixed it for you.
David,
If you want to measure the greenhouse effect, you need to measure the surface temperature, not what is measured by the RSS and UAH datasets.
They may be more accurate, but they are less relevant to the question at hand.
McKitrick correctly concludes this: “….small changes in assumptions about how to deal with uncertainties in the data can have a large effect on the final results.” To me this implies that any specific results are largely uncertain, yet these statistical model outputs are repeatedly used as though they were precision measurements. Hottest year on record and all that jazz. Maybe the Karl piece will finally wake people up. There is no record, just a lot of poor data.
PE: What is the scope, or what type things is it ok to be skeptical about and not be called a denier?
Reply: You have to practice scientific skepticism, and not engage in denialism.
“In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O’Shea remarks, “[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event””- Wiki
Thinking we can lower the temperature of the atmosphere might be a failure to deal with the uncomfortable truth that we can’t effectively do that. An uncomfortable truth is that renewables cannot yet make much of a positive difference. What might be an uncomfortable truth is that temperatures seem to rising at only 1.2 C per century. Our truth is that CO2 causes warming. Beyond that what truths can we claim to have? I think the unkind comments at reddit were made without much care.
Plus a lot of questionable assumptions, of course,
