|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 1, 2023 18:40:08 GMT
It was a sample, a bit like polling, you take a measure of a representative number and apply the figures with levels of uncertainty. I do not apply that to the WUWT values becasue, having been a sampler, I am well aware that if you apply any selection to a sample it raises issues. The sample for the second report was skewed to the stations that had failed in the first report, however with a space of about a dozen years one would think that re-siting and/or some form of correction undertaken. Apparently not. The remainder of the stations assessed were random throughout the nation. So I cannot statistically infer that 96% fail I can however infer a serious problem with the stations nationwide.The same applies here if we take just the stations that the last ten official highest UK temps have been recorded there are serious issues in terms of their accuracy as an uncorrupted temperature reading. The same applies to your ten thousand ford cars. If the ten thousand were a random sample there is a serious problem irrespective of their proportion to all ford cars. If the ten thousand were partly selected as ones that had been wrong in the first place from a random sample there is still a potential massive problem. Ignoring it is not an option but seems to be your preferred MO. Realistically it is for the IPCC to prove their assessments are free from potential flaws, that is not done by calling those who question the values names and lies damn lies and statistics applies to their work as well as has been shown many times in the past. EDIT as regards satellite confirmation it was not the case initially until correction factors were applied, the new infrared readings are lauded as showing a match with the surface temps although I would hasten to add the report is at best difficult to follow and it is unclear what the match is. I have no objections to sampling. But that requires an even higher degree of trust as its much easier to fiddle the figures in a sample. The IPCC are happy their readings are accurate. I would ask accuracy to what degree, I think your link said +-0.03 of a degree, but yet again the really obvious following question is not answered. That question being, did they still consistently show increases in temperature year on year? You tell me. The satellite infrared showed a cooling trend and lower temps until a 'breakthrough paper' on correction factors was presented in 2017. The accuracy was 0.03 C before then but goodness knows what it is with the factors applied, they shout its a match, but hey that is anyone's guess. What we do know is that the figures being presented in all areas are subject to 'correction' of one sort or another. A process of correcting results leads to uncertainties and inaccuracies. They even say they discarded obviously spurious results. No way to run a science project. The belief amongst the sceptical is that when the satellite infrared showed a variance with the land results and also a cooling trend then miraculously it had to be corrected. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 1, 2023 19:40:16 GMT
I have no objections to sampling. But that requires an even higher degree of trust as its much easier to fiddle the figures in a sample. The IPCC are happy their readings are accurate. I would ask accuracy to what degree, I think your link said +-0.03 of a degree, but yet again the really obvious following question is not answered. That question being, did they still consistently show increases in temperature year on year? You tell me. The satellite infrared showed a cooling trend and lower temps until a 'breakthrough paper' on correction factors was presented in 2017. The accuracy was 0.03 C before then but goodness knows what it is with the factors applied, they shout its a match, but hey that is anyone's guess. What we do know is that the figures being presented in all areas are subject to 'correction' of one sort or another. A process of correcting results leads to uncertainties and inaccuracies. They even say they discarded obviously spurious results. No way to run a science project. The belief amongst the sceptical is that when the satellite infrared showed a variance with the land results and also a cooling trend then miraculously it had to be corrected. The belief among the deniers was always going to be that any inaccuracy must be in the right direction and any adjustment a lie. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 1, 2023 19:49:03 GMT
You tell me. The satellite infrared showed a cooling trend and lower temps until a 'breakthrough paper' on correction factors was presented in 2017. The accuracy was 0.03 C before then but goodness knows what it is with the factors applied, they shout its a match, but hey that is anyone's guess. What we do know is that the figures being presented in all areas are subject to 'correction' of one sort or another. A process of correcting results leads to uncertainties and inaccuracies. They even say they discarded obviously spurious results. No way to run a science project. The belief amongst the sceptical is that when the satellite infrared showed a variance with the land results and also a cooling trend then miraculously it had to be corrected. The belief among the deniers was always going to be that any inaccuracy must be in the right direction and any adjustment a lie. No but if an effort is made to get accurate results and they do not concur with the IPCC narrative then is it any surprise to the rest of us that along comes a paper where correction factors turn the whole thing around. Sometimes even you should see that asking questions is a reasonable stance to take in that respect. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 1, 2023 20:34:14 GMT
You tell me. The satellite infrared showed a cooling trend and lower temps until a 'breakthrough paper' on correction factors was presented in 2017. The accuracy was 0.03 C before then but goodness knows what it is with the factors applied, they shout its a match, but hey that is anyone's guess. What we do know is that the figures being presented in all areas are subject to 'correction' of one sort or another. A process of correcting results leads to uncertainties and inaccuracies. They even say they discarded obviously spurious results. No way to run a science project. The belief amongst the sceptical is that when the satellite infrared showed a variance with the land results and also a cooling trend then miraculously it had to be corrected. The belief among the deniers was always going to be that any inaccuracy must be in the right direction and any adjustment a lie. The USCRN results are given below. They tell a tale but what is it? The USCRN is a climate reference network set up to verify possible errors in the corrupted weather station readings.  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 2, 2023 7:49:53 GMT
The belief among the deniers was always going to be that any inaccuracy must be in the right direction and any adjustment a lie. No but if an effort is made to get accurate results and they do not concur with the IPCC narrative then is it any surprise to the rest of us that along comes a paper where correction factors turn the whole thing around. Sometimes even you should see that asking questions is a reasonable stance to take in that respect. I disagree that no effort is made to get accurate results. Much of the evidence you get from WUWT is from studies made by the NOAA IPCC etc. I have no objection to asking the questions, it is the just accepting the explanations given by a site that happens to agree with your given view I object to. It took me a couple of hours to find the first lot of misleading use of data used by WUWT and then the warnings that the site was unreliable because they were known for doing this. You remember the one where they listed scientists that disputed climate change? I took the sentences assigned to each scientist and searched them to find the original articles. In every case I found they had been used out of context. Surely if your concerns are true you can find a few dozen real scientists who say AGW does not exist or isn't a problem, rather than rely on a self appointed blogger for all your evidence? Surely some scientists would have found the real reason for the warming air? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 2, 2023 11:36:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 2, 2023 12:06:07 GMT
No but if an effort is made to get accurate results and they do not concur with the IPCC narrative then is it any surprise to the rest of us that along comes a paper where correction factors turn the whole thing around. Sometimes even you should see that asking questions is a reasonable stance to take in that respect. I disagree that no effort is made to get accurate results. Much of the evidence you get from WUWT is from studies made by the NOAA IPCC etc. I have no objection to asking the questions, it is the just accepting the explanations given by a site that happens to agree with your given view I object to. It took me a couple of hours to find the first lot of misleading use of data used by WUWT and then the warnings that the site was unreliable because they were known for doing this. You remember the one where they listed scientists that disputed climate change? I took the sentences assigned to each scientist and searched them to find the original articles. In every case I found they had been used out of context. Surely if your concerns are true you can find a few dozen real scientists who say AGW does not exist or isn't a problem, rather than rely on a self appointed blogger for all your evidence? Surely some scientists would have found the real reason for the warming air? I have already linked to a list and statement from 500 scientists and experts who clearly do not follow the AGW narrative as that is what they specifically say. Why do you ignore these and wish all contrary views to be born from one blog that you and others denigrate often with no cause. Go back and you will find 500 which is better than the few dozen you have asked for. These are real scientists and real experts. I did not say no effort is made I said that if an effort is made to get accurate results and these results indicate that there is bias in the original results then questions should be asked. That is why I have linked the image above from the official US Climate reference Network which shows no discernible warming since 2005 in the US and in fact there is a slight cooling trend. These are the results which some from the warmist lobby say still shows a warming trend when used with the normal US surface temperature readings. Once again I repeat that WUWT is a location where many publications, bloggers views and observations are collated, many that they publish come direct from warmist publications and are often printed without comment. Often these are peer reviewed and contradict the 'we have only 6 years to save the planet' view. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 2, 2023 12:39:51 GMT
I disagree that no effort is made to get accurate results. Much of the evidence you get from WUWT is from studies made by the NOAA IPCC etc. I have no objection to asking the questions, it is the just accepting the explanations given by a site that happens to agree with your given view I object to. It took me a couple of hours to find the first lot of misleading use of data used by WUWT and then the warnings that the site was unreliable because they were known for doing this. You remember the one where they listed scientists that disputed climate change? I took the sentences assigned to each scientist and searched them to find the original articles. In every case I found they had been used out of context. Surely if your concerns are true you can find a few dozen real scientists who say AGW does not exist or isn't a problem, rather than rely on a self appointed blogger for all your evidence? Surely some scientists would have found the real reason for the warming air? I have already linked to a list and statement from 500 scientists and experts who clearly do not follow the AGW narrative as that is what they specifically say. Why do you ignore these and wish all contrary views to be born from one blog that you and others denigrate often with no cause. Go back and you will find 500 which is better than the few dozen you have asked for. These are real scientists and real experts. I did not say no effort is made I said that if an effort is made to get accurate results and these results indicate that there is bias in the original results then questions should be asked. That is why I have linked the image above from the official US Climate reference Network which shows no discernible warming since 2005 in the US and in fact there is a slight cooling trend. These are the results which some from the warmist lobby say still shows a warming trend when used with the normal US surface temperature readings. Once again I repeat that WUWT is a location where many publications, bloggers views and observations are collated, many that they publish come direct from warmist publications and are often printed without comment. Often these are peer reviewed and contradict the 'we have only 6 years to save the planet' view. I have seen no such list. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2023 13:17:50 GMT
You tell me. The satellite infrared showed a cooling trend and lower temps until a 'breakthrough paper' on correction factors was presented in 2017. The accuracy was 0.03 C before then but goodness knows what it is with the factors applied, they shout its a match, but hey that is anyone's guess. What we do know is that the figures being presented in all areas are subject to 'correction' of one sort or another. A process of correcting results leads to uncertainties and inaccuracies. They even say they discarded obviously spurious results. No way to run a science project. The belief amongst the sceptical is that when the satellite infrared showed a variance with the land results and also a cooling trend then miraculously it had to be corrected. The belief among the deniers was always going to be that any inaccuracy must be in the right direction and any adjustment a lie. My guess is that you will just claim that anything which questions, challenges or contradicts the authority are deniers who should be dismissed, because that's what the authority wants you to do. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 2, 2023 13:34:09 GMT
The belief among the deniers was always going to be that any inaccuracy must be in the right direction and any adjustment a lie. My guess is that you will just claim that anything which questions, challenges or contradicts the authority are deniers who should be dismissed, because that's what the authority wants you to do. And my guess is that you will seize upon anything that can cast doubt on AGW and treat it as a breakthrough in science. Because you so want to have just one conspiracy theory come true. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2023 13:48:04 GMT
My guess is that you will just claim that anything which questions, challenges or contradicts the authority are deniers who should be dismissed, because that's what the authority wants you to do. And my guess is that you will seize upon anything that can cast doubt on AGW and treat it as a breakthrough in science. Because you so want to have just one conspiracy theory come true. The problem with your hypothesis is that you have no evidence to back it up. I'm merely here to see how the thread develops and haven't made any attempt to promote or contradict any data. My current conclusion (it can change) is that all of this is more cultist than scientific. I guess this is the only good thing that can be taken from this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 2, 2023 14:04:22 GMT
I have already linked to a list and statement from 500 scientists and experts who clearly do not follow the AGW narrative as that is what they specifically say. Why do you ignore these and wish all contrary views to be born from one blog that you and others denigrate often with no cause. Go back and you will find 500 which is better than the few dozen you have asked for. These are real scientists and real experts. I did not say no effort is made I said that if an effort is made to get accurate results and these results indicate that there is bias in the original results then questions should be asked. That is why I have linked the image above from the official US Climate reference Network which shows no discernible warming since 2005 in the US and in fact there is a slight cooling trend. These are the results which some from the warmist lobby say still shows a warming trend when used with the normal US surface temperature readings. Once again I repeat that WUWT is a location where many publications, bloggers views and observations are collated, many that they publish come direct from warmist publications and are often printed without comment. Often these are peer reviewed and contradict the 'we have only 6 years to save the planet' view. I have seen no such list. Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter: 1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming. 2. Warming is far slower than predicted. 3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models. 4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide. 5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters. 6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities. 7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 2, 2023 14:07:17 GMT
And my guess is that you will seize upon anything that can cast doubt on AGW and treat it as a breakthrough in science. Because you so want to have just one conspiracy theory come true. The problem with your hypothesis is that you have no evidence to back it up. I'm merely here to see how the thread develops and haven't made any attempt to promote or contradict any data. My current conclusion (it can change) is that all of this is more cultist than scientific. I guess this is the only good thing that can be taken from this thread. And yet your post was directed at me, but nothing similar to any of those who constantly question the dedicated scientists working on climate change. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2023 14:14:31 GMT
The problem with your hypothesis is that you have no evidence to back it up. I'm merely here to see how the thread develops and haven't made any attempt to promote or contradict any data. My current conclusion (it can change) is that all of this is more cultist than scientific. I guess this is the only good thing that can be taken from this thread. And yet your post was directed at me, but nothing similar to any of those who constantly question the dedicated scientists working on climate change. You accused me of promoting conspiracy theories, which is an accusation without any evidence. You did this after I questioned why you repetitively rely on words like "deniers" to outright dismiss Sandypine's effort to give you a discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 2, 2023 14:33:29 GMT
The problem with your hypothesis is that you have no evidence to back it up. I'm merely here to see how the thread develops and haven't made any attempt to promote or contradict any data. My current conclusion (it can change) is that all of this is more cultist than scientific. I guess this is the only good thing that can be taken from this thread. And yet your post was directed at me, but nothing similar to any of those who constantly question the dedicated scientists working on climate change. Why should scientists whether dedicated or not be free from criticism, most especially if they are supporting a belief that most people should use less power and in the event have less freedom? |
|
