World's largest solar plant now online

[asterism]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

 

[asterism]

 

[Abraham3]

You point is true, but in my opinion most of the work that formed the foundation for AGW isn't science.

And why should we take your likely uninformed and almost assuredly inadequately educated opinion over that of many thousands of actively researching, PhD climate scientists?

 

[asterism]

You point is true, but in my opinion most of the work that formed the foundation for AGW isn't science.

And why should we take your likely uninformed and almost assuredly inadequately educated opinion over that of many thousands of actively researching, PhD climate scientists?

Don't take my word for it. Research the educations of the original hockey stick authors and see if you think they were trained well enough in data management, statistics, and software development to be considered experts. Then get the raw data, the original source code, and try to replicate their results.

You can also take a look at the now infamous "HARRY_READ_ME" file and see the many many errors.


Good luck trying to get that raw data though. It doesn't exist.

 

[Abraham3]

Do you think those thousands of climate scientists haven't looked at all of that and hundred other things? Yet the number of scientists convinced as to the validity of AGW has done nothing but grow over time. I'd say the problem is far, far more likely to be your judgement than that thousands of professional scientists and educators have all chosen to lie to the public and to each other; that they have all communicated their falsehoods to each other in advance - in detail sufficient to make certain their temperature records, their model outputs, their paleoclimatic reconstructions all correlate so that no unbearable conflicts arise.

Utter nonsense. If you can't see that... I just don't know what to say to you.

 

[gnarlylove]

Utter nonsense. If you can't see that... I just don't know what to say to you.

There needs to be an internal question arising from the denialist meme-infected host--that is artemis.

so artemis needs to admit the possibility that his believes are false, propagated in the interests of money, not science. Indeed, we all must and should critically evaluate our views. But until this introspective event happens within artemis, we can expect no critical assessment or judgement. He is infected with denialism and the denialist meme tends to become extremist over time. Sadly the likelihood of artemis coming to this assess his own (false) claims is about as likely as a rich person making it into heaven (according to the bible).

 

[Dot Com]

Clearly your right, and science is defined as your anti-AGW talking points. Dismiss legitimate research institutions and international communities that acutely confirm climate change is threatening our future. You think updating the temperature record demonstrates what? Science is learning more about the world all the time, at least good science. Good science keeps advancing and verifying itself, then re-calculating for the new information even if it is different than thought. This leads to more accurate understanding of the world. The more we study it (since the 70s) the more we confirm climate change is largely a result of human causes. That is, those you identify as engaging in "not-science" are the one's confirming this.

Funny how conservatives reach a conclusion first (nothing to see here, move along now) & then look for the data.

 

[asterism]

Do you think those thousands of climate scientists haven't looked at all of that and hundred other things? Yet the number of scientists convinced as to the validity of AGW has done nothing but grow over time. I'd say the problem is far, far more likely to be your judgement than that thousands of professional scientists and educators have all chosen to lie to the public and to each other; that they have all communicated their falsehoods to each other in advance - in detail sufficient to make certain their temperature records, their model outputs, their paleoclimatic reconstructions all correlate so that no unbearable conflicts arise.

Utter nonsense. If you can't see that... I just don't know what to say to you.

In fact, I do think that thousands of climate scientists have not looked at the foundation of the AGW theory. Reproduction of results isn't really done much in climatology and certainly wasn't done much in the early days of this era.

Feynman spoke about this:

One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this--it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.

I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happens.

Nowadays, there's a certain danger of the same thing happening, even in the famous field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an experiment being done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his heavy hydrogen results to what might happen with light hydrogen, he had to use data from someone else's experiment on light hydrogen, which was done on different apparatus. When asked why, he said it was because he couldn't get time on the program (because there's so little time and it's such expensive apparatus) to do the experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there wouldn't be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying--possibly--the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific integrity demands.

"Cargo Cult Science" - by Richard Feynman

 

[Old Rocks]

You point is true, but in my opinion most of the work that formed the foundation for AGW isn't science.

And why should we take your likely uninformed and almost assuredly inadequately educated opinion over that of many thousands of actively researching, PhD climate scientists?

Don't take my word for it. Research the educations of the original hockey stick authors and see if you think they were trained well enough in data management, statistics, and software development to be considered experts. Then get the raw data, the original source code, and try to replicate their results.

You can also take a look at the now infamous "HARRY_READ_ME" file and see the many many errors.


Good luck trying to get that raw data though. It doesn't exist.

There have been more than a dozen studies since the original Mann Graph was published. All have supported that graph. Refined it, but supported it.

RealClimate: A New Take on an Old Millennium

The subject of reconstructions of temperature variations of the past millennium has been discussed many times before on this site (see e.g. here, here, here, and here). Despite the apparent controversy, the basic conclusion–that the global and hemispheric-scale warmth of the past few decades appears anomalous in a very long-term context–has stood up remarkably well in many independent studies (see Figure 1). - See more at: RealClimate: A New Take on an Old Millennium

 

[asterism]

Clearly your right, and science is defined as your anti-AGW talking points. Dismiss legitimate research institutions and international communities that acutely confirm climate change is threatening our future. You think updating the temperature record demonstrates what? Science is learning more about the world all the time, at least good science. Good science keeps advancing and verifying itself, then re-calculating for the new information even if it is different than thought. This leads to more accurate understanding of the world. The more we study it (since the 70s) the more we confirm climate change is largely a result of human causes. That is, those you identify as engaging in "not-science" are the one's confirming this.

Funny how conservatives reach a conclusion first (nothing to see here, move along now) & then look for the data.

I looked for the data and haven't been able to find it. Roger Pielke, Jr. (an actual Climatologist) was told this:

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: We Lost the Original Data

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you think those thousands of climate scientists haven't looked at all of that and hundred other things? Yet the number of scientists convinced as to the validity of AGW has done nothing but grow over time. I'd say the problem is far, far more likely to be your judgement than that thousands of professional scientists and educators have all chosen to lie to the public and to each other; that they have all communicated their falsehoods to each other in advance - in detail sufficient to make certain their temperature records, their model outputs, their paleoclimatic reconstructions all correlate so that no unbearable conflicts arise.

Utter nonsense. If you can't see that... I just don't know what to say to you.

In fact, I do think that thousands of climate scientists have not looked at the foundation of the AGW theory. Reproduction of results isn't really done much in climatology and certainly wasn't done much in the early days of this era.

Feynman spoke about this:

One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this--it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.

I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happens.

Nowadays, there's a certain danger of the same thing happening, even in the famous field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an experiment being done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his heavy hydrogen results to what might happen with light hydrogen, he had to use data from someone else's experiment on light hydrogen, which was done on different apparatus. When asked why, he said it was because he couldn't get time on the program (because there's so little time and it's such expensive apparatus) to do the experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there wouldn't be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying--possibly--the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific integrity demands.

"Cargo Cult Science" - by Richard Feynman

I do believe that you have never looked at the foundations of the science involved in global warming. Here is where you can do that;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[asterism]

And why should we take your likely uninformed and almost assuredly inadequately educated opinion over that of many thousands of actively researching, PhD climate scientists?

Don't take my word for it. Research the educations of the original hockey stick authors and see if you think they were trained well enough in data management, statistics, and software development to be considered experts. Then get the raw data, the original source code, and try to replicate their results.

You can also take a look at the now infamous "HARRY_READ_ME" file and see the many many errors.


Good luck trying to get that raw data though. It doesn't exist.

There have been more than a dozen studies since the original Mann Graph was published. All have supported that graph. Refined it, but supported it.

RealClimate: A New Take on an Old Millennium

The subject of reconstructions of temperature variations of the past millennium has been discussed many times before on this site (see e.g. here, here, here, and here). Despite the apparent controversy, the basic conclusion–that the global and hemispheric-scale warmth of the past few decades appears anomalous in a very long-term context–has stood up remarkably well in many independent studies (see Figure 1). - See more at: RealClimate: A New Take on an Old Millennium

That's great that a reconstruction using the same altered data was done.

Now show me one that used the raw data.

 

[asterism]

Do you think those thousands of climate scientists haven't looked at all of that and hundred other things? Yet the number of scientists convinced as to the validity of AGW has done nothing but grow over time. I'd say the problem is far, far more likely to be your judgement than that thousands of professional scientists and educators have all chosen to lie to the public and to each other; that they have all communicated their falsehoods to each other in advance - in detail sufficient to make certain their temperature records, their model outputs, their paleoclimatic reconstructions all correlate so that no unbearable conflicts arise.

Utter nonsense. If you can't see that... I just don't know what to say to you.

In fact, I do think that thousands of climate scientists have not looked at the foundation of the AGW theory. Reproduction of results isn't really done much in climatology and certainly wasn't done much in the early days of this era.

Feynman spoke about this:

One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this--it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.

I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happens.

Nowadays, there's a certain danger of the same thing happening, even in the famous field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an experiment being done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his heavy hydrogen results to what might happen with light hydrogen, he had to use data from someone else's experiment on light hydrogen, which was done on different apparatus. When asked why, he said it was because he couldn't get time on the program (because there's so little time and it's such expensive apparatus) to do the experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there wouldn't be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying--possibly--the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific integrity demands.

"Cargo Cult Science" - by Richard Feynman

I do believe that you have never looked at the foundations of the science involved in global warming. Here is where you can do that;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Find me the raw temperature data for 1850-1970.

 

[westwall]

Clearly your right, and science is defined as your anti-AGW talking points. Dismiss legitimate research institutions and international communities that acutely confirm climate change is threatening our future. You think updating the temperature record demonstrates what? Science is learning more about the world all the time, at least good science. Good science keeps advancing and verifying itself, then re-calculating for the new information even if it is different than thought. This leads to more accurate understanding of the world. The more we study it (since the 70s) the more we confirm climate change is largely a result of human causes. That is, those you identify as engaging in "not-science" are the one's confirming this.

It's "YOU'RE" just to be correct. How do you expect anyone to take your proclamations of superiority seriously when you can't even get basic English correct?

 

[gnarlylove]

My Lord! That undermines my whole intelligence. I'll de-register to save us all a favor from my incredibly inept editing.

 

[Dot Com]

SunEdison takes step toward solar plant in Saudi Arabia : Business

 

[Dot Com]

Solar power to shine in Middle East - arabiangazette.com

 

[elektra]

SunEdison takes step toward solar plant in Saudi Arabia : Business

Solar power to shine in Middle East - arabiangazette.com

The Saudis are a completely backwards society, they actually buy and sell 8 year old girls into slavery. Woman are not allowed to drive, woman are not allowed to be outside without a husband or brother, woman are not allowed to leave their husbands as in they are owned property with no say as to if she wants to remain in an arranged marriage. Woman are slaves in Saudi Arabia.

I would say the Saudis policy on Solar Power is equally ignorant.

 

[flacaltenn]

Clearly your right, and science is defined as your anti-AGW talking points. Dismiss legitimate research institutions and international communities that acutely confirm climate change is threatening our future. You think updating the temperature record demonstrates what? Science is learning more about the world all the time, at least good science. Good science keeps advancing and verifying itself, then re-calculating for the new information even if it is different than thought. This leads to more accurate understanding of the world. The more we study it (since the 70s) the more we confirm climate change is largely a result of human causes. That is, those you identify as engaging in "not-science" are the one's confirming this.

Funny how conservatives reach a conclusion first (nothing to see here, move along now) & then look for the data.

Maybe because that's the way science works??? You dolt..

And Gnarly is being hysterical about

"Dismiss legitimate research institutions and international communities that acutely confirm climate change is threatening our future. "

MOST skeptics have ZERO problem with the basics of CO2 and temperature rise.. The nutz of the brawl is over FUTURE projections. Projections that use Magic Multipliers that are CLEARLY NOT agreed upon by the Climate Science community.. Without the SCARY END of the Magic Multipliers that are bandied loosely about ---- There would BE NO THREAT to our future...

ACTUAL OBSERVATION does not support the whackier side of the Magic Multipliers. And recently -- they are consistently being revised DOWNWARD and Clim. Sci. are no longer playing weather forecasting psychics like they were a decade ago..

But don't let the details keep you dolts from speculating about what the temperature in 2043 will be.. There IS NO consensus on that... You just IMAGINE that there is...

 

[flacaltenn]

At least 4 threads on the Giant Death Ray at Ivanpah in the forum -- And Dotty just discovers it.