Post by steppenwolf on Jul 18, 2023 8:01:49 GMT
I wonder if any of you saw the interview that Richard Tice did with Jim Dale - who's a weatherman apparently, who's very definitely a believer in all this climate change stuff.
One of the points that Tice tried to make was that historic temperature data is being "manipulated" to fit in with the CO2 theories of warming - which is true. The manipulation results in older temperatures being reduced and later temperatures being raised. Dale was arguing that this is standard scientific practice when faced with a lot of data that is inaccurate. Scientists use filtering algorithms to delete the "inaccurate" data. This is also true.
However, the point is - which Tice didn't make clear enough - is that the the filtering algorithms obviously have to use scientific theories in order to recognise which data is inaccurate. This obviously only works if the scientific theory you're using is one that has been SHOWN to be accurate by various experimental means. Unfortunately what the climate change "bodies" (like the IPCC) do is use the climate models to drive the filtering process.
The absurdity of this should be obvious to even non-scientists (like the IPCC). It's absolutely obvious that the measurements that are going to be deleted are those that don't fit in with the CO2 theory - which is a theory that is known not to work. And that's exactly what happened when they "massaged" the data to eliminate the "hiatus" a few years ago. They ended up deleting the most accurate data we have of sea temperature (from buoys) - and this led to the resignation of two of their leading scientists. One said that this was "not science" it was "crap" - and I agree.
Tice is usually very good at getting his points over, but not this time. It would have been interesting to hear what Jim Dale had to say about this.
One of the points that Tice tried to make was that historic temperature data is being "manipulated" to fit in with the CO2 theories of warming - which is true. The manipulation results in older temperatures being reduced and later temperatures being raised. Dale was arguing that this is standard scientific practice when faced with a lot of data that is inaccurate. Scientists use filtering algorithms to delete the "inaccurate" data. This is also true.
However, the point is - which Tice didn't make clear enough - is that the the filtering algorithms obviously have to use scientific theories in order to recognise which data is inaccurate. This obviously only works if the scientific theory you're using is one that has been SHOWN to be accurate by various experimental means. Unfortunately what the climate change "bodies" (like the IPCC) do is use the climate models to drive the filtering process.
The absurdity of this should be obvious to even non-scientists (like the IPCC). It's absolutely obvious that the measurements that are going to be deleted are those that don't fit in with the CO2 theory - which is a theory that is known not to work. And that's exactly what happened when they "massaged" the data to eliminate the "hiatus" a few years ago. They ended up deleting the most accurate data we have of sea temperature (from buoys) - and this led to the resignation of two of their leading scientists. One said that this was "not science" it was "crap" - and I agree.
Tice is usually very good at getting his points over, but not this time. It would have been interesting to hear what Jim Dale had to say about this.
