France record temperature.....more fakery!!

[forkup]

FACT CHECK: Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?
Some highlights.
Additionally, this study is not (as implied by some coverage) an official publication of the Cato Institute, despite the fact that co-author Craig Idso is an adjunct scientist there. “This study was not published by the Cato Institute,”

published on a WordPress blog run by co-author Joseph D’Aleo — a meteorologist who did not complete a PhD, but who prominently advertises his honorary doctorate on the document’s cover page — is not published in a scientific journal.

a complete lack of discussion of these topics in the report) appear under the banner “The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report”.

We reached out to these scientists to ask if this page was meant to imply that those listed individuals were the peer-reviewers news reports were speaking of. Only one person, George Wolff — a former Environmental Protection Agency atmospheric scientist who is now chief scientist for a company called Air Improvement Resource, Inc. — responded to our request.

Does this look like a credible study to you? Not published besides in a blog???

So do you have any particular problem with either the data or the methodology? Or do you just not like who did the study? If there are problems with either the data or the methodology, by all means point them out...if you just don't like the people who did the study, then once again..you have nothing.

I'm not a scientist. Neither do I claim to be. So asking me to find flaws in this thing is like asking your plumber to do brain surgery and then using the fact that he can't as proof that it's impossible. Having said that. Yes, I personally have a problem with the methodology. Since I know from my high school science class that part of the scientific method involves REVIEW. He didn't subject himself to it. Come to think of it why doesn't that breach so obvious that a layman can easily catch it doesn't bother someone who can find people who post stuff on a blog trying to invalidate climate change?
As to the data itself. Luckily I have the internet and I know how to use it.
We Fact-Checked a Bogus "Study" on Global Temperature That's Misleading Readers
This is someone who actually HAS a Ph.D. debunking it.

So you are saying that you have no idea whether the basis of your own position is correct or not...you simply chose a side, probably based on your politics..but not based on whether or not the science actually supported the story being told.

By the way, what is your Ph.D. in since your comfortable judging your position on climate change to be correct and an outlier to be frank?

LOL... As a Phd candidate and someone who holds a masters degree, it IS an outlier. It has no physical evidence to support it's hypothesis as it does not even meet the criteria for being called a theroy.. Natural Variation and the Null Hypothesis have a much greater probability..

First what Ph.D.?
Second NASA, NOAA, UCS, Department of Agriculture, UN, probably the Easter Bunny, all disagree with your assessment. Occam's razor... What's more likely a Ph.D. candidate in an unspecified field being right, or a multitude and I mean a multitude of actual Ph.D.'s and a mythological rabbit being right?https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

 

[Billy_Bob]

So do you have any particular problem with either the data or the methodology? Or do you just not like who did the study? If there are problems with either the data or the methodology, by all means point them out...if you just don't like the people who did the study, then once again..you have nothing.

I'm not a scientist. Neither do I claim to be. So asking me to find flaws in this thing is like asking your plumber to do brain surgery and then using the fact that he can't as proof that it's impossible. Having said that. Yes, I personally have a problem with the methodology. Since I know from my high school science class that part of the scientific method involves REVIEW. He didn't subject himself to it. Come to think of it why doesn't that breach so obvious that a layman can easily catch it doesn't bother someone who can find people who post stuff on a blog trying to invalidate climate change?
As to the data itself. Luckily I have the internet and I know how to use it.
We Fact-Checked a Bogus "Study" on Global Temperature That's Misleading Readers
This is someone who actually HAS a Ph.D. debunking it.

So you are saying that you have no idea whether the basis of your own position is correct or not...you simply chose a side, probably based on your politics..but not based on whether or not the science actually supported the story being told.

By the way, what is your Ph.D. in since your comfortable judging your position on climate change to be correct and an outlier to be frank?

LOL... As a Phd candidate and someone who holds a masters degree, it IS an outlier. It has no physical evidence to support it's hypothesis as it does not even meet the criteria for being called a theroy.. Natural Variation and the Null Hypothesis have a much greater probability..

First what Ph.D.?
Second NASA, NOAA, UCS, Department of Agriculture, UN, probably the Easter Bunny, all disagree with your assessment. Occam's razor... What's more likely a Ph.D. candidate in an unspecified field being right, or a multitude and I mean a multitude of actual Ph.D.'s and a mythological rabbit being right?

Atmospheric Physics...and a Practicing meteorologist..

LOL.. You cite Occam's razor and omit its meaning and process from your thought pattern. Very Nice... Then try to say the failed modeling is more accurate than empirically observed evidence which shows your hypothesis failed. Again, very nice... Lastly you attack the person because they do not agree with your hyperbole... F**k Off! Your bantering doesn't bother me. I have discussions with Phd's that you cant even grasp the simple concepts on..

 

[forkup]

I'm not a scientist. Neither do I claim to be. So asking me to find flaws in this thing is like asking your plumber to do brain surgery and then using the fact that he can't as proof that it's impossible. Having said that. Yes, I personally have a problem with the methodology. Since I know from my high school science class that part of the scientific method involves REVIEW. He didn't subject himself to it. Come to think of it why doesn't that breach so obvious that a layman can easily catch it doesn't bother someone who can find people who post stuff on a blog trying to invalidate climate change?
As to the data itself. Luckily I have the internet and I know how to use it.
We Fact-Checked a Bogus "Study" on Global Temperature That's Misleading Readers
This is someone who actually HAS a Ph.D. debunking it.

So you are saying that you have no idea whether the basis of your own position is correct or not...you simply chose a side, probably based on your politics..but not based on whether or not the science actually supported the story being told.

By the way, what is your Ph.D. in since your comfortable judging your position on climate change to be correct and an outlier to be frank?

LOL... As a Phd candidate and someone who holds a masters degree, it IS an outlier. It has no physical evidence to support it's hypothesis as it does not even meet the criteria for being called a theroy.. Natural Variation and the Null Hypothesis have a much greater probability..

First what Ph.D.?
Second NASA, NOAA, UCS, Department of Agriculture, UN, probably the Easter Bunny, all disagree with your assessment. Occam's razor... What's more likely a Ph.D. candidate in an unspecified field being right, or a multitude and I mean a multitude of actual Ph.D.'s and a mythological rabbit being right?

Atmospheric Physics...and a Practicing meteorologist..

LOL.. You cite Occam's razor and omit its meaning and process from your thought pattern. Very Nice... Then try to say the failed modeling is more accurate than empirically observed evidence which shows your hypothesis failed. Again, very nice... Lastly you attack the person because they do not agree with your hyperbole... F**k Off! Your bantering doesn't bother me. I have discussions with Ph.D.'s that you cant even grasp the simple concepts on..

My thought process is self-evident. I even spell it out. If I have to believe a single person who holds a masters degree and thereby disregard a multitude of people who hold Ph.D.'s, some I imagine in the field you practice then I'm violating Occam's razor am I not? And no I didn't mean to attack you. I'm using logic. As to your boast and what I can only assume is a dig at me. So what? My logic stands regardless if I have the theoretical knowledge to defend climate change myself. Not for nothing meteorologist. Have a problem with the majority opinion? Fine go ahead and publish and go through the process. Move the consensus and I'll be on board. Until that time you are nothing more than me. A guy trying to defend his position on a POLITICAL forum, which by the way seems an odd place to defend a position on global warming if you're an actual scientist in a related field.

 

[skookerasbil]

It's still hotter than all its other measurements. So what's your problem?

Put a few more weather stations in parking lots and the average temperature will be even higher!

No, I'm saying that no matter where you put it, if it records its highest temp ever, that can mean something.

How many weather stations were located in parking lots in 1930?

June was the hottest ever recorded on Earth

LOL........notice........the climate obsessed never bother to operationally define "hottest"


fake

But we already know, progressives tend to the hysterical so..........

 

[SSDD]

All of the adjusted, manipulated, and tortured records point up...the only temperature data network on earth that is so pristinely placed that it requires no adjustment has not shown any warming for more than 10 years. The temperature rise is in the adjustments...not in the actual temperature...

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

FACT CHECK: Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?
Some highlights.
Additionally, this study is not (as implied by some coverage) an official publication of the Cato Institute, despite the fact that co-author Craig Idso is an adjunct scientist there. “This study was not published by the Cato Institute,”

published on a WordPress blog run by co-author Joseph D’Aleo — a meteorologist who did not complete a PhD, but who prominently advertises his honorary doctorate on the document’s cover page — is not published in a scientific journal.

a complete lack of discussion of these topics in the report) appear under the banner “The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report”.

We reached out to these scientists to ask if this page was meant to imply that those listed individuals were the peer-reviewers news reports were speaking of. Only one person, George Wolff — a former Environmental Protection Agency atmospheric scientist who is now chief scientist for a company called Air Improvement Resource, Inc. — responded to our request.

Does this look like a credible study to you? Not published besides in a blog???

So do you have any particular problem with either the data or the methodology? Or do you just not like who did the study? If there are problems with either the data or the methodology, by all means point them out...if you just don't like the people who did the study, then once again..you have nothing.

I'm not a scientist. Neither do I claim to be. So asking me to find flaws in this thing is like asking your plumber to do brain surgery and then using the fact that he can't as proof that it's impossible. Having said that. Yes, I personally have a problem with the methodology. Since I know from my high school science class that part of the scientific method involves REVIEW. He didn't subject himself to it. Come to think of it why doesn't that breach so obvious that a layman can easily catch it doesn't bother someone who can find people who post stuff on a blog trying to invalidate climate change?
As to the data itself. Luckily I have the internet and I know how to use it.
We Fact-Checked a Bogus "Study" on Global Temperature That's Misleading Readers
This is someone who actually HAS a Ph.D. debunking it.

So you are saying that you have no idea whether the basis of your own position is correct or not...you simply chose a side, probably based on your politics..but not based on whether or not the science actually supported the story being told.

The basis of my own position is based on me trusting those that have actually gone to college to learn to understand and investigate why the climate is changing. The same way I trust my mechanic to fix my car. Or a mason to build my house. I also notice you are dodging the question. Why doesn't it bother you that the link you provided sites a study that is NOT peer-reviewed. Oh, and politics have nothing to do with it. Science is apolitical. The reason I know this is because this discussion is being had on a political forum and then predominantly in the US. While in scientific circles the consensus on human-induced climate change is high and growing.

So you hold a position of faith... Completely unsurprising since it is impossible to hold an alarmist position based on the evidence.

And if you believe climate science is apolitical, then you are among the most naive people on earth...the very thought is laughable...

And what other branch of science can you name in which "consensus" is offered up as if it were evidence? Pick any other branch of science and question the mainstream hypothesis and you get bombarded from every direction with actual evidence to support the hypothesis....not so with climate science...you hear about "consensus" and see no actual evidence to support the claims...

And no...it doesn't bother me a bit that the paper was not peer reviewed...hell you offered up a newspaper article as if it were evidence of something more than your own gullibility...You certainly couldn't name any problem with either the data or the methodology so what exactly is the problem other than perhaps you simply can't understand it, and it disagrees with your faith...

 

[SSDD]

All of the adjusted, manipulated, and tortured records point up...the only temperature data network on earth that is so pristinely placed that it requires no adjustment has not shown any warming for more than 10 years. The temperature rise is in the adjustments...not in the actual temperature...

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

FACT CHECK: Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?
Some highlights.
Additionally, this study is not (as implied by some coverage) an official publication of the Cato Institute, despite the fact that co-author Craig Idso is an adjunct scientist there. “This study was not published by the Cato Institute,”

published on a WordPress blog run by co-author Joseph D’Aleo — a meteorologist who did not complete a PhD, but who prominently advertises his honorary doctorate on the document’s cover page — is not published in a scientific journal.

a complete lack of discussion of these topics in the report) appear under the banner “The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report”.

We reached out to these scientists to ask if this page was meant to imply that those listed individuals were the peer-reviewers news reports were speaking of. Only one person, George Wolff — a former Environmental Protection Agency atmospheric scientist who is now chief scientist for a company called Air Improvement Resource, Inc. — responded to our request.

Does this look like a credible study to you? Not published besides in a blog???

So do you have any particular problem with either the data or the methodology? Or do you just not like who did the study? If there are problems with either the data or the methodology, by all means point them out...if you just don't like the people who did the study, then once again..you have nothing.

I'm not a scientist. Neither do I claim to be. So asking me to find flaws in this thing is like asking your plumber to do brain surgery and then using the fact that he can't as proof that it's impossible. Having said that. Yes, I personally have a problem with the methodology. Since I know from my high school science class that part of the scientific method involves REVIEW. He didn't subject himself to it. Come to think of it why doesn't that breach so obvious that a layman can easily catch it doesn't bother someone who can find people who post stuff on a blog trying to invalidate climate change?
As to the data itself. Luckily I have the internet and I know how to use it.
We Fact-Checked a Bogus "Study" on Global Temperature That's Misleading Readers
This is someone who actually HAS a Ph.D. debunking it.

So you are saying that you have no idea whether the basis of your own position is correct or not...you simply chose a side, probably based on your politics..but not based on whether or not the science actually supported the story being told.

By the way, what is your Ph.D. in since your comfortable judging your position on climate change to be correct and an outlier to be frank?

I don't hold a PhD...as it isn't a requirement to understand science...unfortunate that you are so uneducated that you believe it is necessary. I actually look at the evidence....or the lack thereof...climate science is sadly lacking...not the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

 

[SSDD]

So do you have any particular problem with either the data or the methodology? Or do you just not like who did the study? If there are problems with either the data or the methodology, by all means point them out...if you just don't like the people who did the study, then once again..you have nothing.

I'm not a scientist. Neither do I claim to be. So asking me to find flaws in this thing is like asking your plumber to do brain surgery and then using the fact that he can't as proof that it's impossible. Having said that. Yes, I personally have a problem with the methodology. Since I know from my high school science class that part of the scientific method involves REVIEW. He didn't subject himself to it. Come to think of it why doesn't that breach so obvious that a layman can easily catch it doesn't bother someone who can find people who post stuff on a blog trying to invalidate climate change?
As to the data itself. Luckily I have the internet and I know how to use it.
We Fact-Checked a Bogus "Study" on Global Temperature That's Misleading Readers
This is someone who actually HAS a Ph.D. debunking it.

So you are saying that you have no idea whether the basis of your own position is correct or not...you simply chose a side, probably based on your politics..but not based on whether or not the science actually supported the story being told.

By the way, what is your Ph.D. in since your comfortable judging your position on climate change to be correct and an outlier to be frank?

LOL... As a Phd candidate and someone who holds a masters degree, it IS an outlier. It has no physical evidence to support it's hypothesis as it does not even meet the criteria for being called a theroy.. Natural Variation and the Null Hypothesis have a much greater probability..

First what Ph.D.?
Second NASA, NOAA, UCS, Department of Agriculture, UN, probably the Easter Bunny, all disagree with your assessment. Occam's razor... What's more likely a Ph.D. candidate in an unspecified field being right, or a multitude and I mean a multitude of actual Ph.D.'s and a mythological rabbit being right?https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

If those people are on the right track...surely they could provide you with at least a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...at least one..and yet, they can't.. and for all the impressive department names, they still have yet to produce a single published paper in which the warming that is supposedly due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on greenhouse gasses...for all the cries of impending catastrophe, don't you think at least one paper should have been published which measured and quantified the warming we are supposed to be causing? And there has yet to be a single piece of observed measured evidence presented which estabishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.....but there are about a million hours of development, experiment, and observation produced by the infrared heating industry that state flatly that infrared radiation does not, can not, and never will warm the air.....precisely the opposite of the unsupported claims of climate science...

You have been duped by the media, and politicians...they are the ones telling you about the impending doom...and a couple of bought and paid for self styled alarmist pseudoscientists... Hell, look at michael mann for example...thus far he has spent in excess of a million dollars in an attempt to keep anyone else from seeing either his data or methodology because he knows that if they do, his career will likely be over....there is climate science for you in a nutshell...do you have any idea how many peer reviewed papers rely on the accuracy of his own work in order for their own work to be credible? Any idea at all?

Look up the term error cascade to see what will happen to climate science when michael mann finally has to produce his work for public inspection...

 

[SSDD]

So you are saying that you have no idea whether the basis of your own position is correct or not...you simply chose a side, probably based on your politics..but not based on whether or not the science actually supported the story being told.

By the way, what is your Ph.D. in since your comfortable judging your position on climate change to be correct and an outlier to be frank?

LOL... As a Phd candidate and someone who holds a masters degree, it IS an outlier. It has no physical evidence to support it's hypothesis as it does not even meet the criteria for being called a theroy.. Natural Variation and the Null Hypothesis have a much greater probability..

First what Ph.D.?
Second NASA, NOAA, UCS, Department of Agriculture, UN, probably the Easter Bunny, all disagree with your assessment. Occam's razor... What's more likely a Ph.D. candidate in an unspecified field being right, or a multitude and I mean a multitude of actual Ph.D.'s and a mythological rabbit being right?

Atmospheric Physics...and a Practicing meteorologist..

LOL.. You cite Occam's razor and omit its meaning and process from your thought pattern. Very Nice... Then try to say the failed modeling is more accurate than empirically observed evidence which shows your hypothesis failed. Again, very nice... Lastly you attack the person because they do not agree with your hyperbole... F**k Off! Your bantering doesn't bother me. I have discussions with Ph.D.'s that you cant even grasp the simple concepts on..

My thought process is self-evident. I even spell it out. If I have to believe a single person who holds a masters degree and thereby disregard a multitude of people who hold Ph.D.'s, some I imagine in the field you practice then I'm violating Occam's razor am I not? And no I didn't mean to attack you. I'm using logic. As to your boast and what I can only assume is a dig at me. So what? My logic stands regardless if I have the theoretical knowledge to defend climate change myself. Not for nothing meteorologist. Have a problem with the majority opinion? Fine go ahead and publish and go through the process. Move the consensus and I'll be on board. Until that time you are nothing more than me. A guy trying to defend his position on a POLITICAL forum, which by the way seems an odd place to defend a position on global warming if you're an actual scientist in a related field.

Your position is one of faith...unfortunate that the educational system has failed you to that degree...that you must accept any scientific claim on faith....just like they did back in the dark ages...

 

[forkup]

FACT CHECK: Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?
Some highlights.
Additionally, this study is not (as implied by some coverage) an official publication of the Cato Institute, despite the fact that co-author Craig Idso is an adjunct scientist there. “This study was not published by the Cato Institute,”

published on a WordPress blog run by co-author Joseph D’Aleo — a meteorologist who did not complete a PhD, but who prominently advertises his honorary doctorate on the document’s cover page — is not published in a scientific journal.

a complete lack of discussion of these topics in the report) appear under the banner “The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report”.

We reached out to these scientists to ask if this page was meant to imply that those listed individuals were the peer-reviewers news reports were speaking of. Only one person, George Wolff — a former Environmental Protection Agency atmospheric scientist who is now chief scientist for a company called Air Improvement Resource, Inc. — responded to our request.

Does this look like a credible study to you? Not published besides in a blog???

So do you have any particular problem with either the data or the methodology? Or do you just not like who did the study? If there are problems with either the data or the methodology, by all means point them out...if you just don't like the people who did the study, then once again..you have nothing.

I'm not a scientist. Neither do I claim to be. So asking me to find flaws in this thing is like asking your plumber to do brain surgery and then using the fact that he can't as proof that it's impossible. Having said that. Yes, I personally have a problem with the methodology. Since I know from my high school science class that part of the scientific method involves REVIEW. He didn't subject himself to it. Come to think of it why doesn't that breach so obvious that a layman can easily catch it doesn't bother someone who can find people who post stuff on a blog trying to invalidate climate change?
As to the data itself. Luckily I have the internet and I know how to use it.
We Fact-Checked a Bogus "Study" on Global Temperature That's Misleading Readers
This is someone who actually HAS a Ph.D. debunking it.

So you are saying that you have no idea whether the basis of your own position is correct or not...you simply chose a side, probably based on your politics..but not based on whether or not the science actually supported the story being told.

The basis of my own position is based on me trusting those that have actually gone to college to learn to understand and investigate why the climate is changing. The same way I trust my mechanic to fix my car. Or a mason to build my house. I also notice you are dodging the question. Why doesn't it bother you that the link you provided sites a study that is NOT peer-reviewed. Oh, and politics have nothing to do with it. Science is apolitical. The reason I know this is because this discussion is being had on a political forum and then predominantly in the US. While in scientific circles the consensus on human-induced climate change is high and growing.

So you hold a position of faith... Completely unsurprising since it is impossible to hold an alarmist position based on the evidence.

And if you believe climate science is apolitical, then you are among the most naive people on earth...the very thought is laughable...

And what other branch of science can you name in which "consensus" is offered up as if it were evidence? Pick any other branch of science and question the mainstream hypothesis and you get bombarded from every direction with actual evidence to support the hypothesis....not so with climate science...you hear about "consensus" and see no actual evidence to support the claims...

And no...it doesn't bother me a bit that the paper was not peer reviewed...hell you offered up a newspaper article as if it were evidence of something more than your own gullibility...You certainly couldn't name any problem with either the data or the methodology so what exactly is the problem other than perhaps you simply can't understand it, and it disagrees with your faith...

I find my faith in the people who study the actual problem, who have the training to collect ,interpret, and format the available data a way more reasonable position than your faith in your own ability to do so by browsing the net. I would also have more faith in a brain surgeon operating on my brain, than I would a mechanic claiming he could do it better.

 

[forkup]

I'm not a scientist. Neither do I claim to be. So asking me to find flaws in this thing is like asking your plumber to do brain surgery and then using the fact that he can't as proof that it's impossible. Having said that. Yes, I personally have a problem with the methodology. Since I know from my high school science class that part of the scientific method involves REVIEW. He didn't subject himself to it. Come to think of it why doesn't that breach so obvious that a layman can easily catch it doesn't bother someone who can find people who post stuff on a blog trying to invalidate climate change?
As to the data itself. Luckily I have the internet and I know how to use it.
We Fact-Checked a Bogus "Study" on Global Temperature That's Misleading Readers
This is someone who actually HAS a Ph.D. debunking it.

So you are saying that you have no idea whether the basis of your own position is correct or not...you simply chose a side, probably based on your politics..but not based on whether or not the science actually supported the story being told.

By the way, what is your Ph.D. in since your comfortable judging your position on climate change to be correct and an outlier to be frank?

LOL... As a Phd candidate and someone who holds a masters degree, it IS an outlier. It has no physical evidence to support it's hypothesis as it does not even meet the criteria for being called a theroy.. Natural Variation and the Null Hypothesis have a much greater probability..

First what Ph.D.?
Second NASA, NOAA, UCS, Department of Agriculture, UN, probably the Easter Bunny, all disagree with your assessment. Occam's razor... What's more likely a Ph.D. candidate in an unspecified field being right, or a multitude and I mean a multitude of actual Ph.D.'s and a mythological rabbit being right?https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

If those people are on the right track...surely they could provide you with at least a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...at least one..and yet, they can't.. and for all the impressive department names, they still have yet to produce a single published paper in which the warming that is supposedly due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on greenhouse gasses...for all the cries of impending catastrophe, don't you think at least one paper should have been published which measured and quantified the warming we are supposed to be causing? And there has yet to be a single piece of observed measured evidence presented which estabishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.....but there are about a million hours of development, experiment, and observation produced by the infrared heating industry that state flatly that infrared radiation does not, can not, and never will warm the air.....precisely the opposite of the unsupported claims of climate science...

You have been duped by the media, and politicians...they are the ones telling you about the impending doom...and a couple of bought and paid for self styled alarmist pseudoscientists... Hell, look at michael mann for example...thus far he has spent in excess of a million dollars in an attempt to keep anyone else from seeing either his data or methodology because he knows that if they do, his career will likely be over....there is climate science for you in a nutshell...do you have any idea how many peer reviewed papers rely on the accuracy of his own work in order for their own work to be credible? Any idea at all?

Look up the term error cascade to see what will happen to climate science when michael mann finally has to produce his work for public inspection...

Eh, you realize that the link you provided is some dude trying to explain why the methodology behind the observed collected evidence is incorrect? You do realize that the entire starting premise of the OP is the same thing. So when you say that scientist need to be able to produce a single piece of evidence. What you actually mean is that scientists need to be able to produce a single piece of evidence that you personally are willing to accept?

 

[forkup]

By the way, what is your Ph.D. in since your comfortable judging your position on climate change to be correct and an outlier to be frank?

LOL... As a Phd candidate and someone who holds a masters degree, it IS an outlier. It has no physical evidence to support it's hypothesis as it does not even meet the criteria for being called a theroy.. Natural Variation and the Null Hypothesis have a much greater probability..

First what Ph.D.?
Second NASA, NOAA, UCS, Department of Agriculture, UN, probably the Easter Bunny, all disagree with your assessment. Occam's razor... What's more likely a Ph.D. candidate in an unspecified field being right, or a multitude and I mean a multitude of actual Ph.D.'s and a mythological rabbit being right?

Atmospheric Physics...and a Practicing meteorologist..

LOL.. You cite Occam's razor and omit its meaning and process from your thought pattern. Very Nice... Then try to say the failed modeling is more accurate than empirically observed evidence which shows your hypothesis failed. Again, very nice... Lastly you attack the person because they do not agree with your hyperbole... F**k Off! Your bantering doesn't bother me. I have discussions with Ph.D.'s that you cant even grasp the simple concepts on..

My thought process is self-evident. I even spell it out. If I have to believe a single person who holds a masters degree and thereby disregard a multitude of people who hold Ph.D.'s, some I imagine in the field you practice then I'm violating Occam's razor am I not? And no I didn't mean to attack you. I'm using logic. As to your boast and what I can only assume is a dig at me. So what? My logic stands regardless if I have the theoretical knowledge to defend climate change myself. Not for nothing meteorologist. Have a problem with the majority opinion? Fine go ahead and publish and go through the process. Move the consensus and I'll be on board. Until that time you are nothing more than me. A guy trying to defend his position on a POLITICAL forum, which by the way seems an odd place to defend a position on global warming if you're an actual scientist in a related field.

Your position is one of faith...unfortunate that the educational system has failed you to that degree...that you must accept any scientific claim on faith....just like they did back in the dark ages...

My position is based on my faith that the educational system is capable of educating people in a chosen field to a degree that makes them more competent in their job than some random poster who claims he knows better. I personally find that a perfectly intelligent position.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL... As a Phd candidate and someone who holds a masters degree, it IS an outlier. It has no physical evidence to support it's hypothesis as it does not even meet the criteria for being called a theroy.. Natural Variation and the Null Hypothesis have a much greater probability..

First what Ph.D.?
Second NASA, NOAA, UCS, Department of Agriculture, UN, probably the Easter Bunny, all disagree with your assessment. Occam's razor... What's more likely a Ph.D. candidate in an unspecified field being right, or a multitude and I mean a multitude of actual Ph.D.'s and a mythological rabbit being right?

Atmospheric Physics...and a Practicing meteorologist..

LOL.. You cite Occam's razor and omit its meaning and process from your thought pattern. Very Nice... Then try to say the failed modeling is more accurate than empirically observed evidence which shows your hypothesis failed. Again, very nice... Lastly you attack the person because they do not agree with your hyperbole... F**k Off! Your bantering doesn't bother me. I have discussions with Ph.D.'s that you cant even grasp the simple concepts on..

My thought process is self-evident. I even spell it out. If I have to believe a single person who holds a masters degree and thereby disregard a multitude of people who hold Ph.D.'s, some I imagine in the field you practice then I'm violating Occam's razor am I not? And no I didn't mean to attack you. I'm using logic. As to your boast and what I can only assume is a dig at me. So what? My logic stands regardless if I have the theoretical knowledge to defend climate change myself. Not for nothing meteorologist. Have a problem with the majority opinion? Fine go ahead and publish and go through the process. Move the consensus and I'll be on board. Until that time you are nothing more than me. A guy trying to defend his position on a POLITICAL forum, which by the way seems an odd place to defend a position on global warming if you're an actual scientist in a related field.

Your position is one of faith...unfortunate that the educational system has failed you to that degree...that you must accept any scientific claim on faith....just like they did back in the dark ages...

My position is based on my faith that the educational system is capable of educating people in a chosen field to a degree that makes them more competent in their job than some random poster who claims he knows better. I personally find that a perfectly intelligent position.

My position is based on verifiable facts, which you and your faith can not produce. Without these facts to prove the hypothesis valid, your belief is, at best, unwarranted.

You are aware that appealing to authority is a logical fallacy argument in science, dont you?

 

[forkup]

FACT CHECK: Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?
Some highlights.

First what Ph.D.?
Second NASA, NOAA, UCS, Department of Agriculture, UN, probably the Easter Bunny, all disagree with your assessment. Occam's razor... What's more likely a Ph.D. candidate in an unspecified field being right, or a multitude and I mean a multitude of actual Ph.D.'s and a mythological rabbit being right?

Atmospheric Physics...and a Practicing meteorologist..

LOL.. You cite Occam's razor and omit its meaning and process from your thought pattern. Very Nice... Then try to say the failed modeling is more accurate than empirically observed evidence which shows your hypothesis failed. Again, very nice... Lastly you attack the person because they do not agree with your hyperbole... F**k Off! Your bantering doesn't bother me. I have discussions with Ph.D.'s that you cant even grasp the simple concepts on..

My thought process is self-evident. I even spell it out. If I have to believe a single person who holds a masters degree and thereby disregard a multitude of people who hold Ph.D.'s, some I imagine in the field you practice then I'm violating Occam's razor am I not? And no I didn't mean to attack you. I'm using logic. As to your boast and what I can only assume is a dig at me. So what? My logic stands regardless if I have the theoretical knowledge to defend climate change myself. Not for nothing meteorologist. Have a problem with the majority opinion? Fine go ahead and publish and go through the process. Move the consensus and I'll be on board. Until that time you are nothing more than me. A guy trying to defend his position on a POLITICAL forum, which by the way seems an odd place to defend a position on global warming if you're an actual scientist in a related field.

Your position is one of faith...unfortunate that the educational system has failed you to that degree...that you must accept any scientific claim on faith....just like they did back in the dark ages...

My position is based on my faith that the educational system is capable of educating people in a chosen field to a degree that makes them more competent in their job than some random poster who claims he knows better. I personally find that a perfectly intelligent position.

My position is based on verifiable facts, which you and your faith can not produce. Without these facts to prove the hypothesis valid, your belief is, at best, unwarranted.

You are aware that appealing to authority is a logical fallacy argument in science, dont you?

I am aware that an appeal to authority can be a logical fallacy. On the other hand since we both agree that science is the way to determine the truth about global warming , claiming scientists are the authority to defer to is not fallacious. Are you aware that I'm not claiming to be an authority and therefore rely on people who have studied the field to become an authority. At least you claim to have actual formal training in the field. (something I find odd since you keep on claiming there is no emperical evidence and you feel the need to argue your position with me, someone you claim doesn't have the wherewithal to understand the science). The other person doesn't even do that and simply states he knows better than the overwhelming majority of scientists. Again want to convince me? Publish, move the consensus and I will gladly reverse my position. Something I suspect no amount of empirical evidence will do for you or the other guy.

 

[forkup]

First what Ph.D.?
Second NASA, NOAA, UCS, Department of Agriculture, UN, probably the Easter Bunny, all disagree with your assessment. Occam's razor... What's more likely a Ph.D. candidate in an unspecified field being right, or a multitude and I mean a multitude of actual Ph.D.'s and a mythological rabbit being right?

Atmospheric Physics...and a Practicing meteorologist..

LOL.. You cite Occam's razor and omit its meaning and process from your thought pattern. Very Nice... Then try to say the failed modeling is more accurate than empirically observed evidence which shows your hypothesis failed. Again, very nice... Lastly you attack the person because they do not agree with your hyperbole... F**k Off! Your bantering doesn't bother me. I have discussions with Ph.D.'s that you cant even grasp the simple concepts on..

My thought process is self-evident. I even spell it out. If I have to believe a single person who holds a masters degree and thereby disregard a multitude of people who hold Ph.D.'s, some I imagine in the field you practice then I'm violating Occam's razor am I not? And no I didn't mean to attack you. I'm using logic. As to your boast and what I can only assume is a dig at me. So what? My logic stands regardless if I have the theoretical knowledge to defend climate change myself. Not for nothing meteorologist. Have a problem with the majority opinion? Fine go ahead and publish and go through the process. Move the consensus and I'll be on board. Until that time you are nothing more than me. A guy trying to defend his position on a POLITICAL forum, which by the way seems an odd place to defend a position on global warming if you're an actual scientist in a related field.

Your position is one of faith...unfortunate that the educational system has failed you to that degree...that you must accept any scientific claim on faith....just like they did back in the dark ages...

My position is based on my faith that the educational system is capable of educating people in a chosen field to a degree that makes them more competent in their job than some random poster who claims he knows better. I personally find that a perfectly intelligent position.

My position is based on verifiable facts, which you and your faith can not produce. Without these facts to prove the hypothesis valid, your belief is, at best, unwarranted.

You are aware that appealing to authority is a logical fallacy argument in science, dont you?

I will post a bunch of links later to actual articles giving verifiable facts on man made global warming. Since you are so bent on talking to me instead of your supposed peers. I would like you to cite the problems with it. Use small words I'm dumb after all.

 

[skookerasbil]

Temperature fakery is ghey. I'm just happy the public policy makers realize it and reject the AGW crap. Only thing that matters to me.....keeps AGW what it is: a hobby for the climate obsessed.

 

[Wyatt earp]

LOL... As a Phd candidate and someone who holds a masters degree, it IS an outlier. It has no physical evidence to support it's hypothesis as it does not even meet the criteria for being called a theroy.. Natural Variation and the Null Hypothesis have a much greater probability..

First what Ph.D.?
Second NASA, NOAA, UCS, Department of Agriculture, UN, probably the Easter Bunny, all disagree with your assessment. Occam's razor... What's more likely a Ph.D. candidate in an unspecified field being right, or a multitude and I mean a multitude of actual Ph.D.'s and a mythological rabbit being right?

Atmospheric Physics...and a Practicing meteorologist..

LOL.. You cite Occam's razor and omit its meaning and process from your thought pattern. Very Nice... Then try to say the failed modeling is more accurate than empirically observed evidence which shows your hypothesis failed. Again, very nice... Lastly you attack the person because they do not agree with your hyperbole... F**k Off! Your bantering doesn't bother me. I have discussions with Ph.D.'s that you cant even grasp the simple concepts on..

My thought process is self-evident. I even spell it out. If I have to believe a single person who holds a masters degree and thereby disregard a multitude of people who hold Ph.D.'s, some I imagine in the field you practice then I'm violating Occam's razor am I not? And no I didn't mean to attack you. I'm using logic. As to your boast and what I can only assume is a dig at me. So what? My logic stands regardless if I have the theoretical knowledge to defend climate change myself. Not for nothing meteorologist. Have a problem with the majority opinion? Fine go ahead and publish and go through the process. Move the consensus and I'll be on board. Until that time you are nothing more than me. A guy trying to defend his position on a POLITICAL forum, which by the way seems an odd place to defend a position on global warming if you're an actual scientist in a related field.

Your position is one of faith...unfortunate that the educational system has failed you to that degree...that you must accept any scientific claim on faith....just like they did back in the dark ages...

My position is based on my faith that the educational system is capable of educating people in a chosen field to a degree that makes them more competent in their job than some random poster who claims he knows better. I personally find that a perfectly intelligent position.

Yeah we know don't drink salt water the scientist said so.

.

 

[skookerasbil]

Atmospheric Physics...and a Practicing meteorologist..

LOL.. You cite Occam's razor and omit its meaning and process from your thought pattern. Very Nice... Then try to say the failed modeling is more accurate than empirically observed evidence which shows your hypothesis failed. Again, very nice... Lastly you attack the person because they do not agree with your hyperbole... F**k Off! Your bantering doesn't bother me. I have discussions with Ph.D.'s that you cant even grasp the simple concepts on..

My thought process is self-evident. I even spell it out. If I have to believe a single person who holds a masters degree and thereby disregard a multitude of people who hold Ph.D.'s, some I imagine in the field you practice then I'm violating Occam's razor am I not? And no I didn't mean to attack you. I'm using logic. As to your boast and what I can only assume is a dig at me. So what? My logic stands regardless if I have the theoretical knowledge to defend climate change myself. Not for nothing meteorologist. Have a problem with the majority opinion? Fine go ahead and publish and go through the process. Move the consensus and I'll be on board. Until that time you are nothing more than me. A guy trying to defend his position on a POLITICAL forum, which by the way seems an odd place to defend a position on global warming if you're an actual scientist in a related field.

Your position is one of faith...unfortunate that the educational system has failed you to that degree...that you must accept any scientific claim on faith....just like they did back in the dark ages...

My position is based on my faith that the educational system is capable of educating people in a chosen field to a degree that makes them more competent in their job than some random poster who claims he knows better. I personally find that a perfectly intelligent position.

My position is based on verifiable facts, which you and your faith can not produce. Without these facts to prove the hypothesis valid, your belief is, at best, unwarranted.

You are aware that appealing to authority is a logical fallacy argument in science, dont you?

I will post a bunch of links later to actual articles giving verifiable facts on man made global warming. Since you are so bent on talking to me instead of your supposed peers. I would like you to cite the problems with it. Use small words I'm dumb after all.

Dont bother s0n....a waste of time. Everyone and their brother is aware of the articles......but nobody is caring.

Instead....post up some articles showing us where the science is mattering in the real world. Anything else is nothing more than acedemic banter.

 

[SSDD]

LOL... As a Phd candidate and someone who holds a masters degree, it IS an outlier. It has no physical evidence to support it's hypothesis as it does not even meet the criteria for being called a theroy.. Natural Variation and the Null Hypothesis have a much greater probability..

First what Ph.D.?
Second NASA, NOAA, UCS, Department of Agriculture, UN, probably the Easter Bunny, all disagree with your assessment. Occam's razor... What's more likely a Ph.D. candidate in an unspecified field being right, or a multitude and I mean a multitude of actual Ph.D.'s and a mythological rabbit being right?

Atmospheric Physics...and a Practicing meteorologist..

LOL.. You cite Occam's razor and omit its meaning and process from your thought pattern. Very Nice... Then try to say the failed modeling is more accurate than empirically observed evidence which shows your hypothesis failed. Again, very nice... Lastly you attack the person because they do not agree with your hyperbole... F**k Off! Your bantering doesn't bother me. I have discussions with Ph.D.'s that you cant even grasp the simple concepts on..

My thought process is self-evident. I even spell it out. If I have to believe a single person who holds a masters degree and thereby disregard a multitude of people who hold Ph.D.'s, some I imagine in the field you practice then I'm violating Occam's razor am I not? And no I didn't mean to attack you. I'm using logic. As to your boast and what I can only assume is a dig at me. So what? My logic stands regardless if I have the theoretical knowledge to defend climate change myself. Not for nothing meteorologist. Have a problem with the majority opinion? Fine go ahead and publish and go through the process. Move the consensus and I'll be on board. Until that time you are nothing more than me. A guy trying to defend his position on a POLITICAL forum, which by the way seems an odd place to defend a position on global warming if you're an actual scientist in a related field.

Your position is one of faith...unfortunate that the educational system has failed you to that degree...that you must accept any scientific claim on faith....just like they did back in the dark ages...

My position is based on my faith that the educational system is capable of educating people in a chosen field to a degree that makes them more competent in their job than some random poster who claims he knows better. I personally find that a perfectly intelligent position.

If your conversation thus far is any indication, you may think you are placing your faith in science, but in reality, you are placing your faith in newspaper journalists, environmental activists, and politicians to tell you what the science says. Thus far, you have provided out dated 20 year old science that turned out to be a dead end and opinion pieces from the news. That is clearly where you get your information.

If you actually were keeping up with the science in any real way, you would know that in this year alone, more than 200 papers have been published which are skeptical of the consensus opinion...and these papers are not relying on models, they are the result of actual observation and measurement...and many of them compare models to observation and demonstrate how bad the models actually are.

More than 500 papers were published in 2018 which were skeptical of the consensus opinion..your 20 year old paper was from a time when a skeptical paper simply could not make it through the gatekeepers of climate science...if you were keeping up with the science, rather than what the media, activists, and politicians tell you about the science, you would know that the AGW hypothesis is dying the death of 10,000 cuts....the more time elapses, the more observations deviate from its predictions.

And by the way, this random poster is providing up to date science...not 20 year old dead end inferrers, not opinion pieces from the news, but actual science backed by observations...

 

[SSDD]

Atmospheric Physics...and a Practicing meteorologist..

LOL.. You cite Occam's razor and omit its meaning and process from your thought pattern. Very Nice... Then try to say the failed modeling is more accurate than empirically observed evidence which shows your hypothesis failed. Again, very nice... Lastly you attack the person because they do not agree with your hyperbole... F**k Off! Your bantering doesn't bother me. I have discussions with Ph.D.'s that you cant even grasp the simple concepts on..

My thought process is self-evident. I even spell it out. If I have to believe a single person who holds a masters degree and thereby disregard a multitude of people who hold Ph.D.'s, some I imagine in the field you practice then I'm violating Occam's razor am I not? And no I didn't mean to attack you. I'm using logic. As to your boast and what I can only assume is a dig at me. So what? My logic stands regardless if I have the theoretical knowledge to defend climate change myself. Not for nothing meteorologist. Have a problem with the majority opinion? Fine go ahead and publish and go through the process. Move the consensus and I'll be on board. Until that time you are nothing more than me. A guy trying to defend his position on a POLITICAL forum, which by the way seems an odd place to defend a position on global warming if you're an actual scientist in a related field.

Your position is one of faith...unfortunate that the educational system has failed you to that degree...that you must accept any scientific claim on faith....just like they did back in the dark ages...

My position is based on my faith that the educational system is capable of educating people in a chosen field to a degree that makes them more competent in their job than some random poster who claims he knows better. I personally find that a perfectly intelligent position.

My position is based on verifiable facts, which you and your faith can not produce. Without these facts to prove the hypothesis valid, your belief is, at best, unwarranted.

You are aware that appealing to authority is a logical fallacy argument in science, dont you?

I am aware that an appeal to authority can be a logical fallacy. On the other hand since we both agree that science is the way to determine the truth about global warming , claiming scientists are the authority to defer to is not fallacious. Are you aware that I'm not claiming to be an authority and therefore rely on people who have studied the field to become an authority. At least you claim to have actual formal training in the field. (something I find odd since you keep on claiming there is no emperical evidence and you feel the need to argue your position with me, someone you claim doesn't have the wherewithal to understand the science). The other person doesn't even do that and simply states he knows better than the overwhelming majority of scientists. Again want to convince me? Publish, move the consensus and I will gladly reverse my position. Something I suspect no amount of empirical evidence will do for you or the other guy.

Since there has never been a paper published in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing by our activities, and which will, according to climate science lead to catastrophe, has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses, exactly what are the claims that you ascribe to your authority based upon? One would think that in order to claim that mankind is altering the global climate, and that these changes will lead to disaster, wouldn't at least one paper which actually measures and quantifies the warming we are supposed to be causing seem to be in order?

Isn't that the very minimum required by the scientific method?

 

[SSDD]

Atmospheric Physics...and a Practicing meteorologist..

LOL.. You cite Occam's razor and omit its meaning and process from your thought pattern. Very Nice... Then try to say the failed modeling is more accurate than empirically observed evidence which shows your hypothesis failed. Again, very nice... Lastly you attack the person because they do not agree with your hyperbole... F**k Off! Your bantering doesn't bother me. I have discussions with Ph.D.'s that you cant even grasp the simple concepts on..

My thought process is self-evident. I even spell it out. If I have to believe a single person who holds a masters degree and thereby disregard a multitude of people who hold Ph.D.'s, some I imagine in the field you practice then I'm violating Occam's razor am I not? And no I didn't mean to attack you. I'm using logic. As to your boast and what I can only assume is a dig at me. So what? My logic stands regardless if I have the theoretical knowledge to defend climate change myself. Not for nothing meteorologist. Have a problem with the majority opinion? Fine go ahead and publish and go through the process. Move the consensus and I'll be on board. Until that time you are nothing more than me. A guy trying to defend his position on a POLITICAL forum, which by the way seems an odd place to defend a position on global warming if you're an actual scientist in a related field.

Your position is one of faith...unfortunate that the educational system has failed you to that degree...that you must accept any scientific claim on faith....just like they did back in the dark ages...

My position is based on my faith that the educational system is capable of educating people in a chosen field to a degree that makes them more competent in their job than some random poster who claims he knows better. I personally find that a perfectly intelligent position.

My position is based on verifiable facts, which you and your faith can not produce. Without these facts to prove the hypothesis valid, your belief is, at best, unwarranted.

You are aware that appealing to authority is a logical fallacy argument in science, dont you?

I will post a bunch of links later to actual articles giving verifiable facts on man made global warming. Since you are so bent on talking to me instead of your supposed peers. I would like you to cite the problems with it. Use small words I'm dumb after all.

Good luck....it is always interesting to see what passes for evidence in the minds of warmers...before you embarrass yourself though, perhaps you might take a bit of time to acquaint yourself with climate history before you start making claims about unprecedented this and unprecedented that. You might at least familiarize yourself with the fact that the present is cooler than the vast bulk of the past 10,000 years, and that we have not even warmed to the temperature that existed prior to the onset of the little ice age....and the fact that we remain in the midst of a 20 year pause in warming and are beginning to see signs of a long term cooling trend....

Just so you know.