Global warming data a hoax?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
Even if that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that humans are skewing climate change and that we should do something about it. What's there to gain by artificially propping up the fossil fuel industry and suppressing all climate change science?

Some scientists are averring that man-made CO2 pumping will delay the next ice age by 100,000 years. If they were right about that, would you classify that 100,00 year delay as a benefit to carbon forcing?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Only 21 more studies to go...all effectively saying the same thing.

lol, of course. When shown that your source is using shit studies to 'prove' its point and is biased just like I said it would be your response is not to reconsider why you chose a bad source but to double down on it.

Someday DSF...someday you're going to get better about your sources. (okay, you probably won't)
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,206
6,799
136
Numerous recent studies indicate that it is indeed true that ECS has been over-estimated by the IPCC...are you a denier?

The broad consensus is that there's still a significant impact, and "numerous recent studies" don't automatically overturn that.

Also, can you answer my question, please?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
You didn't cite any studies, you cited the Cato Institute's graph where they selected a group of studies. I decided to look up the first one they listed and sure enough, it's a study by a climate change denier whose 'study' was so ineptly done that it achieved this response:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014004876





Their model wasn't even based on physics. lol. That was literally the first listed study and already we know they are including ineptly made garbage. As usual, untrustworthy sources prove themselves to be untrustworthy but you never learn.



It sure doesn't as the only evidence you've provided for it is a chart made by a climate change denial advocate.

As always, pride seems to be stopping you from admitting you yet again cited a source because it told you what you wanted to hear instead of stopping to check if the source was credible.
Ouch. Amazing that anyone would attempt to argue that the climate data is skewed with a graph like that when it is so quickly and easily confirmed as bogus/deeply flawed with simple Google and scholarly searches freely available to anyone with a computer (i.e. all of P&N).

I wonder if DSF would tell us if he ever graduated from college and, if so, would he be able to find a credible prof of any political persuasion that wouldn't significantly mark down a paper that cited such clearly bunk/flawed research from a source as questionable as Cato (though I suppose as "think tanks" go, they are the more "credible" of the partisan ones out there).
 
Last edited:

greatnoob

Senior member
Jan 6, 2014
968
395
136
Damn dude that post while apparently acceptable, just reeks of nastyness. What's the point of it?

People as stupid and ignorant as him are why you have Trump as your president, they shouldn't be allowed to freely shit out their alternative facts unless they can be called a fucking idiot while doing so. DSF and other climate change deniers have no scientific ground to stand on but they're always the most vocal about the thing they understand the least. You could say they're the "earth-is-flat" proponents of our time.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,381
7,444
136
Numerous recent studies indicate that it is indeed true that ECS has been over-estimated by the IPCC...are you a denier?

I'm certainly willing to believe it has been exaggerated. They just don't have a firm grasp when speaking to all aspects of a complex system. Some bits and pieces will be more certain and precise than others. Not to mention personal biases.

You speak of their errors, but to what end? All signs point to continued global warming, do they not?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
^ lol. The world is shocked to find out David Rose and The Mail generally (and this article in particular) are without merit and entirely unserious.

Silly kids, go chase your tails in the backyard.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
I'm certainly willing to believe it has been exaggerated. They just don't have a firm grasp when speaking to all aspects of a complex system. Some bits and pieces will be more certain and precise than others. Not to mention personal biases.

You speak of their errors, but to what end? All signs point to continued global warming, do they not?

"Between dishonest dumbshits and the entire body of scientific evidence, the truth must be somewhere in the middle".
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136

Exit Fake news: /Faux whimpers off

Enter real news: /kapow!

DO NOT BUY THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE’S CLAIM THAT SCIENTISTS FAKED DATA UNTIL YOU READ THIS

NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT NOAA FABRICATED DATA; EVIDENCE STILL POINTS TO CLIMATE CHANGE

http://www.popsci.com/regardless-ho...sts-probably-didnt-manipulate-climate-records

lk27Qws.jpg
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,098
146
Sometimes I think that the contemporary GOP is a hoax perpetrated against the American people (and, well, the world).
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136
And to drive the point home.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...isuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science

Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science

This weekend, conservative media outlets launched an attack on climate scientists with a manufactured scandal. The fake news originated from an accusation made by former NOAA scientist John Bates about a 2015 paper by some of his NOAA colleagues. The technical term to describe the accusation is ‘a giant nothingburger,’ as Bates clarified in an interview with E&E News:

The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.

Bates later told Science Insider that he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity:

I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Lol, Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail as a news source: http://m.slashdot.org/story/322277

I wonder if this gives pause to people who cite these shit sources, cause when Wikipedia has to go out of their way to ban a news source because it's track record is hot garbage, it may be time to stop pretending your posts have credibility or are going to convince anyone of your lame partisan positions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136
Lol, Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail as a news source: http://m.slashdot.org/story/322277

I wonder if this gives pause to people who cite these shit sources, cause when Wikipedia has to go out of their way to ban a news source because it's track record is hot garbage, it may be time to stop pretending your posts have credibility or are going to convince anyone of your lame partisan positions.

LOl just checked out your link for the GOP ACA replacement plan.

And yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: First

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
25,991
23,789
136
Lol, Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail as a news source: http://m.slashdot.org/story/322277

I wonder if this gives pause to people who cite these shit sources, cause when Wikipedia has to go out of their way to ban a news source because it's track record is hot garbage, it may be time to stop pretending your posts have credibility or are going to convince anyone of your lame partisan positions.
The libbies are afraid of the TRUTH if you want real info go to conservipedia and info wars. Wikipedia is just part of the lying lame stream media. MAGA!

(I should stop drinking in the morning)

The comments on that slashdof story are downright depressing including people defending RT as a source.
 
  • Like
Reactions: First

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
The Ars link from Fski has a good summation:



TL/DR

The Daily Mail tried to overlay the higher NOAA data on top of the lower MET data to show how NOAA was rigging the data to make it look warmer.

However temperature data is plotted relative to a baseline. NOAA and MET used different baselines. When using the same baseline they basically show the same temperature anomaly.

Ok I understand now. Either the Daily Mail is extremely dishonest or dumb as rocks. That is just plain embarrassing.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
LOl just checked out your link for the GOP ACA replacement plan.

And yes.
https://spectator.org/40334_wikipedia-meets-its-own-climategate/
I doubt if you know and i have even greater doubt if you care about the manipulation of wikipedia.

"How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.

Solomon draws attention to the online labors of one William M. Connolley, a Green Party activist and software engineer in Britain. Starting in February 2003, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. I continue with a two-paragraph direct quote from Mr. Solomon’s article:


[Connolley] rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug. 11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band [of climatologist activists]. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band [of activists] especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

Online replies to this article included the following, appearing about 24 hours after Solomon’s article went on line:

Recently, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee determined that “William M. Connolley has, on a number of occasions misused his administrator tools by acting while involved” and, as a consequence, “William M. Connolley’s administrative privileges are revoked.”

[Link: en.wikipedia.org/…/Abd-William_M._Connolley]......................"

Even those that use it don't consider wikipedia to be an honest assessment of politically controversial subjects.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Ok I understand now. Either the Daily Mail is extremely dishonest or dumb as rocks. That is just plain embarrassing.

You make it sound as if the two are mutually exclusive. These people clearly don't understand any science (ie dumb), yet pretend as if they do (ie dishonest).
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,107
1,260
126
You also won't see the OP come back and say 'ooops, I was duped again'. That is all crazy town sites that spread climate change denial propaganda are after. Dupe the usual gullible base and continue to convince them science is a political issue, with a political slant no less, rather than factual reality.

They'll happily go forward with another dud weapon in their arsenal of alternative facts that only goes off for other equally deluded members of the tribe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
You also won't see the OP come back and say 'ooops, I was duped again'. That is all crazy town sites that spread climate change denial propaganda are after. Dupe the usual gullible base and continue to convince them science is a political issue, with a political slant no less, rather than factual reality.

They'll happily go forward with another dud weapon in their arsenal of alternative facts that only goes off for other equally deluded members of the tribe.

Do you suppose there's ever a line to be crossed when someone chooses to be systemically wrong with such predictable force and conviction that they can no longer be classified as "duped"?

It bears repeating that liberals by default assume others want to be factually correct, thus any error is a mistake in judgment, but that's just a result of the more basic assumption everyone subscribes to enlightenment virtues.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136
https://spectator.org/40334_wikipedia-meets-its-own-climategate/
I doubt if you know and i have even greater doubt if you care about the manipulation of wikipedia.
.

I was mostly talking about the link in his Signature
GOP ACA Replacement Plan very funny imo.

But as far as Wikipedia that was eight years ago and I can't control everything that is printed or posted. As far as conservapedia, its an online joke. You have to see everything through Christian fundamentalist eyes?

Here is what trending there.