|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 30, 2023 19:11:23 GMT
The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking. www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress.
Well who'd have thought. You really need to check your sources. What you really need to do is to check the data as opposed to checking the sources. The report was an assessment against specifications laid down by the NOAA. What you are saying is it is wrong for someone to deliberately go out and find a problem with weather stations that are supplying data upon which world climate policy is based. I would say otherwise that if we are basing policy on an assessment of temperatures then we would expect the collection of that information to be consistent and if someone can find serious errors. then there is a problem. Fact checking of Heartland report seems to be along the lines 'well we know some stations are poorly sited but we apply correction factors where applicable'. Would you buy a car from someone with that attitude 'well we know the mileage was a bit low so we turned it on a bit to where we thought it should be'. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 30, 2023 19:23:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 30, 2023 19:28:37 GMT
Sandy, this is the echo chamber where snowflakes post their articles of faith and you aren't supposed to challenge them. That's how things work here.  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 19:30:20 GMT
The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking. www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress.
Well who'd have thought. You really need to check your sources. What you really need to do is to check the data as opposed to checking the sources. The report was an assessment against specifications laid down by the NOAA. What you are saying is it is wrong for someone to deliberately go out and find a problem with weather stations that are supplying data upon which world climate policy is based. I would say otherwise that if we are basing policy on an assessment of temperatures then we would expect the collection of that information to be consistent and if someone can find serious errors. then there is a problem. Fact checking of Heartland report seems to be along the lines 'well we know some stations are poorly sited but we apply correction factors where applicable'. Would you buy a car from someone with that attitude 'well we know the mileage was a bit low so we turned it on a bit to where we thought it should be'. If the data is out there it will be available from better sources. Your dodgy site quotes the NOAA so find me the figures from them. Otherwise you get exactly what I found, .makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 19:33:15 GMT
Sandy, this is the echo chamber where snowflakes post their articles of faith and you aren't supposed to challenge them. That's how things work here. If its an echo chamber its yours not mine, you outnumber me 5 to 1. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 30, 2023 19:33:47 GMT
If the data is out there it will be available from better sources. Your dodgy site quotes the NOAA so find me the figures from them. Otherwise you get exactly what I found, .makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading Requests evidence. Is supplied with evidence. Doesn't like evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 30, 2023 19:35:59 GMT
Sandy, this is the echo chamber where snowflakes post their articles of faith and you aren't supposed to challenge them. That's how things work here. If its an echo chamber its yours not mine, you outnumber me 5 to 1. Nope, I can assure you that there's only one of me. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 19:42:51 GMT
If the data is out there it will be available from better sources. Your dodgy site quotes the NOAA so find me the figures from them. Otherwise you get exactly what I found, .makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading Requests evidence. Is supplied with evidence. Doesn't like evidence. I expect you'd accept any evidence I presented? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 19:45:06 GMT
If its an echo chamber its yours not mine, you outnumber me 5 to 1. Nope, I can assure you that there's only one of me. But many on here support your views. Haven't you noticed. Oh and you may want to hone your sarcasm. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 30, 2023 19:47:15 GMT
Nope, I can assure you that there's only one of me. But many on here support your views. Haven't you noticed. Oh and you may want to hone your sarcasm. Talking of honing TSM doesn't have a dull axe to grind.. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 19:49:23 GMT
But many on here support your views. Haven't you noticed. Oh and you may want to hone your sarcasm. Talking of honing TSM doesn't have a dull axe to grind.. Strange on a political forum. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 30, 2023 19:53:20 GMT
Talking of honing TSM doesn't have a dull axe to grind.. Strange on a political forum. Nothing strange in the truth Unlike the ECO fiction. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 30, 2023 19:57:26 GMT
I expect you'd accept any evidence I presented? Yes. You just need to present some. But many on here support your views... Yes, probably because they're well evidenced. Oh and you may want to hone your sarcasm. And why on Earth would I need to do that? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 20:18:48 GMT
I expect you'd accept any evidence I presented? Naah, my evidence is well presented by many scientific institutes. Saving me the effort. But I've yet to see you just accept it. But many on here support your views... Lol. Oh and you may want to hone your sarcasm. And why on Earth would I need to do that? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 30, 2023 21:08:23 GMT
What you really need to do is to check the data as opposed to checking the sources. The report was an assessment against specifications laid down by the NOAA. What you are saying is it is wrong for someone to deliberately go out and find a problem with weather stations that are supplying data upon which world climate policy is based. I would say otherwise that if we are basing policy on an assessment of temperatures then we would expect the collection of that information to be consistent and if someone can find serious errors. then there is a problem. Fact checking of Heartland report seems to be along the lines 'well we know some stations are poorly sited but we apply correction factors where applicable'. Would you buy a car from someone with that attitude 'well we know the mileage was a bit low so we turned it on a bit to where we thought it should be'. If the data is out there it will be available from better sources. Your dodgy site quotes the NOAA so find me the figures from them. Otherwise you get exactly what I found, .makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleadingYou are changing direction here. The data used is as sourced from the NOAA, no one has disputed that (except you). The specification of weather stations is as defined by the NOAA no one has disputed that. The compliance of those weather stations to the NOAA requirements has been assessed accurately, no one has disputed that. All that is disputed is the findings and questions on the methodology of the sampling/selection procedure. There is no dispute that of the stations tested 96% were not in compliance with the NOAA specs. What is in dispute is what that means in terms of all the other stations and the overall readings. About 90 stations were the same stations as considered in the critical 2009 report and a further 30 were newer stations. The stations were located nationwide although the sampling was not totally random so statistical inferences are to a certain extent subjective opinions ( a not uncommon event in climate science and the reporting and commenting on it) The fact checkers thought that a scientific paper should have been written and published. This is nonsense, unqualified personnel assess many things in many ways for many things. This is the whole point of specifications, procedures and quality assurance as it is usually unqualified personnel taking readings working to specifications and procedures laid down by the NOAA. Assessing how those specifications and procedures are being met is not a scientific finding it is a straightforward spec and procedural compliance observation. |
|
