Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by opluso

0
0

Spurious because it is an artifact of the selected adjustment methodology.


Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by JCH

0
0

Haung is also an author on the Karl paper in question.

According to Huang (2015), adjusting the buoys (not the ships) created a small, spurious warming from 1980 forward. … -Opluso

Opluso – where does Huang cal it spurious? I don’t see that. Is that your word for it, or Huang’s? It seems odd he would co-author a paper with what he considered to be a spurious result.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by kentclizbe

0
0

Gee, willikers, Daddy Mosher, you’re so smart!

Why can’t we all have your clearly superior sense of self?

If only everyone was a perspicacious and sagacious as you think you are.

When this scam is finally up, there’s a great opportunity at the carnival–or the bus station–your mis-direction banter and babbling will surely earn you a profit with the rubes there.

Until they run you out of town on a rail.

In the meantime, happy adjusting!

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Pat Cassen

0
0

opluso – I believe you are misunderstanding what Huang et al are saying, perhaps because of a poor choice of words on their part. They do not say that adjusting buoys, not ships, causes a spurious warming. Olof R and Pierre-Normand Houle are correct; adjusting is necessary and gives the same result either way.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Stephen Segrest

0
0

My questions were not to provoke a fight and was prompted by Dr. Curry’s link to a Politifact story which stated — the committee’s rules on issuing subpoenas were recently changed where the committee under Smith’s leadership has now issued six subpoenas, more than were used in its previous 54-year history.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by kneel63

0
0

“… who’s spending him some tax dollars in order to steer the science of climate more towards what he, as a freakin’ politician, thinks is the more valid interpretation of the evidence.”

Err, no he’s not. He’s asking for justification for the changes that were made. He believes it may have been politically influenced, and is asking for emails that may shed some light on that aspect.
He asked nicely, and was told “get lost”.
So now he’s applying legal pressure, as his his right and duty.
Even you, Joshua, would have to admit that the boss being blown off by the employees on a request he has every right to expect to be answered, has a right and duty to start making demands instead of requests.
I know it’s a “Mommy, mommy” moment, but they (NOAA) really did start it this time – if they are squeaky-clean and all above board, why go to the trouble of hiding anything? Doesn’t make sense to me. If ’twas me, and I thought it was all above board, I’d hand it over at the request and make quite plain that I was offended that anyone could think I was being anything other than honest and forthright.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Mike Flynn

0
0

Steven Mosher,

Why are you so intent on cooling by adjusting? If the unadjusted figures show warming, then so be it.

It seems you can produce cooling, warming, or no change, by changing your adjustment algorithm or not using it at all.

Do you also remove data that you think is wrong?

Wonderful. As long as everybody realises you produce a result that the customer wants, there’s no harm done. Pretending it’s science is misleading, at BEST.

Cheers.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by PA

0
0

No. Just no.

Either they are going to produce a production temperature report for general consumption that is produced in conformance with an engineering standard, or they should be banned from disseminating it for external use until the adjustments are done. When they are done tinkering their methodology can be converted to an engineering standard and the responsibility for producing the production report turned over to another department now that they are done.

Either that or just defund the the departments producing the propaganda reports and pay an external company to produce a production quality report for general consumption and political planning.

It is better to be consistent than to be right.


Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Jim D

0
0

It is a known trend bias due to changing measurement types over time. Known biases have to be corrected rather than ignored. Karl has done this in the past as a leader of the TOBS correction that no one (except Watts) disputes. If it went the other way, the skeptics would be in favor of making a correction, and no one would be asking for any written correspondence with Obama. McIntyre accepted Karl’s TOBS correction and maybe has to weigh in on this one to calm the skeptics down, but so far he has said nothing preferring to talk about deflategate when this came out.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by opluso

0
0

OK, maybe you’re not my BEST friend after all. We’ll talk again after your hangover gets better.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by mosomoso

0
0

Adjust in any direction. Like it would matter. The Holocene Epoch temps are a dropped spaghetti, not terribly detailed, but the wiggly shape is pretty clear. You’re usually better off on a bump than in a dip, depending on where you live. We wouldn’t be constantly alarmed by perfectly natural conditions of change which have been pretty modest of late (remember, you could walk from Melbourne to Tasmania not that many millennia ago) if we didn’t pay a priesthood to be alarmed.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Mark Silbert

0
0

The NYTimes has an editorial by their resident green freak Timothy Egan in tomorrows paper on this subject. I commented as follows:

MNS Santa Fe, NM Pending Approval
Timothy Egan is a boob that doesn’t understand science. He has made a career out of vilifying Exxon since the Valdez oil spill days. The fact that the NYTmes publishes his tripe just confirms the socialist bent of the organization.

Thank you for your submission. We’ll notify you at rm***@mac.com when your comment has been approved.

What are the odds that they’ll publish my comment?

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Mike Flynn

0
0

Steven Mosher,

Nature adjusted SSTs from boiling to much less.

I wouldn’t be surprised if your attempts to bring about the result you want – cooling, warming, funding – end in failure.

It appears you still haven’t found your lost clue. The other Warmists don’t seem to have found it. Still clueless!

Cheers.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by JCH

0
0

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” – Acton

And he never even met Smith.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Jim D

0
0

One wonders what use it is to give a scientific briefing to a group of congressional aides. They probably can’t tell their COADS from their NMAT, so 90% would go over their heads.


Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by cerescokid

0
0

Mosher
Forget the issue of adjustments. The fact that anyone at anytime ever gave the ship gathered temperatures any credence at all speaks volumes about how desperate climate science was toget some legitimacy in their proclamation about OHC. True scientists would have gladly declared long ago they didn’t know a damn thing about Ocean temperatures. Instead we see a continuation of the charade of self delusion and putting up a proud front so no one will discover what a pathetic excuse all of this is for science. There is nothing before the buoys. Get over it.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by popesclimatetheory

0
0

Maybe so, but this doesn’t require their emails. It simply requires doing is again. This is obvious, isn’t it? Even making a “collossally bad judgement” does not justify a congressional witch hunt. You also seem to know what they did wrong, so why do you need more?

When they make a “collossally bad judgement” that for sure does justify a congressional witch hunt. We elect congress to keep people honest. These are supposed to be intelligent, educated, scientists. For them to use “collossally bad judgement” is a red flag that they did this for reasons that result from political reasons that have nothing to do with honest science.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by timg56

0
0

Ironic that a guy who couldn’t find this own ass with both hands tied behind his back talks about blind spots.

Still Josh shows his chops as a clown school valedictorian.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by jim2

0
0

So, what’s Congress to do? Just about every agency is armed to the teeth if not outright militarized. Even the EPA has armed agents. What does Congress have? If push comes to shove, do the Congressmen forcibly jail someone in the Administration? How does that work?

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by jim2

0
0

And we are still engaged in millihair splitting.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images