Tuesday
Dec152015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Sierra Club silliness
Dec 15, 2015 Climate: Surface Greens Many thanks to John Shade for this hilarious video from the US Congress, which I hadn't seen before.
Dec 15, 2015 Climate: Surface Greens
Reader Comments (145)
son of mulder, climate scientists know they are right, because that is what they keep telling each other, and they have fabricated data to prove it.
I'm just in awe of the blatant disregard for facts and logic whereby a person can 'rest on a position' which says something 'should not be up for debate', and then in the next breath say 'We can debate anything - anything is up for debate'.
There's a kind of heroic quality to it. If he keeps spinning like that, he'll meet himself coming back before long ;-)
Could someone remind me of the total number of heads counted in the infamous survey of ''climate scientist'' opinion which resulted in the 97 to 3 percent divide. Something underwhelming as I recall.
Bish
It doesn't stop there! Aaron Mair (or probably one of his confidants/advisors) realized that he must have looked like a complete fool in that hearing.
So he posted a 'reply*on youtube:
Climate Denial is Not an Option: A Message to Ted Cruz
It is almost as hilarious as the original, and I don't think he managed to convince anybody who isn't already a staunch believer of anything other that that Mair is one of them too ..
Aila (Dec 16, 2015 at 7:05 AM): that response is more to do with Lucas Arts, not Sierra.
I am no sure you are watching the same video as everyone else is. Sen. Cruz addressed the issue of the 97% very well, pointing out that it was based on one – yes, ONE (1) – bogus study. That it has been “replicated” by two of Cook’s buddies, in studies that have also been comprehensively shredded, does not alter that fact (or am I wrong in assuming that you know what a “fact” is?). Now, as this mythical 97% has been shown to be bogus, why should the senator spend any more time than is necessary discussing it? Quite rightly, he focussed on the data – while he might not be an acclaimed scientist, I am sure that any properly scientific mind would concur that that is the best option when discussing… er… the data.
"It doesn't stop there! Aaron Mair (or probably one of his confidants/advisors) realized that he must have looked like a complete fool in that hearing."
OMG. Is there a real human being behind that mask or just a robot designed to parrot a pre-programmed speech?
It really is quite disturbing.
Jonas N, that is very sad, and an indication of desperation.
The fabricated science of Global Warming has been political for years. The Catholic Church has been ensnared into making it into a matter of religious conviction. Now it is an issue of racial conviction.
Let us all pray to a God of our own understanding, no matter what colour he, she, or it might be, that proper Legal Convictions will follow.
Well, he most certainly was reading a pre-prepared statement directly from the screen. I doubt he prepared it himself ...
.. but he certainly rehearsed it a couple of times, even recorded the attempts, and picked the one they felt sounded most 'convincing'.
Don't you just get the distinct impression that the 'warmists' would REALLY like to get their hands on those pesky satellite records so that they could be 'corrected'..?
By the way - Senator Cruz For President..!
son of mulder...
'As the satellite and surface clearly diverge and balloon data aligns with the satellite results there needs to be a scientific explanation of why the surface shows more warming than the troposphere even though AGW theory says the opposite.'
******************
This failure to demonstrate how the satellite data is incorrect versus the land data explains why every single one of the 60-odd 'papers' and 'studiers' that try to explain / debunk the pause actually do nothing of the sort. They're all different opinions, nothing more.
But on the other side of the climate data ledger sceptics show time and again how and why the surface data is pure, manipulated junk.
The difference between empty alarmist rhetoric and verifiable sceptical evidence is astonishing.
@Joseph Sydney : "The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout." Financial Post
I think there are 4 , 97% studies and they are all garbage
Explaining a debunk of 97% is DIFFICULT, cos it is wrong at so many levels at the same time
* Fallacy of ad popularum
* It's a question anyone would say Yes to anyway
* The media coverage is such that it says one thing when the actual question says something far less dramatic etc.
* The standards of data gathering were often flaky
(List of peer reviewed rebuattals)
Bad science in the media is often preluded by : "An opinion survey says"
Dec 16, 2015 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterJonas N
(on the response from aaron mair)
Comments are disabled. Wonder why?
Alia,
The consensus wall is hardly wet tissue paper compared to the pause wall.
And don't do the 'cherrypicking dance' because I will just rephrase the pause to ask you:
How can you go back throuth the satellite record using the statistically peer reviewed technique of least squares to get to a start point for the pause. Do show your workings.
Holy Climate Bingo-!
Doing a cutaway from last weeks video of Cruz the Gish-galloping scientific ignoramus being grollached by a former Oceanographer of the Navy to last year's video of Cruz the tort lawyer cross-examining a green fundraising flack is a video move worthy of a Gore or Oreskes film.
Like the old fahrts just sitting around calling out the numbers of the jokes, 97% enters the pantheon.
======================
Kim, are there more than 97 varieties of excuse for the pause?
The Heinz 97 Varieties of Science Conspiracy. They all lead to hot air.
Martin Brumby
"Would Caroline Lucas & Vivienne Westwood be convinced by these 'consensuses'?"
Why not? Alan Johnson is.
'Grollached' Russell? Have you been watching 'reality' TV with Aila instead of doing your homework?
GGGee , GC, don't you beleive what you read in the Wall Street Journal?
http://www.wsj.com/video/arctic-set-new-warming-record-in-2015/D6CA2119-2F50-4BC5-B020-53D601423972.html
vvussell, it is sad that you revel in dragging academic science into disrepute. I am not sure your legacy will be universally celebrated.
But it is your choice, to deny others the right to choose.
What you 'beleive' is not important Russell.
Gavin, you must remember that a few days ago, vvussell mocked someone over some spelling mistakes, labelling him as 'dyslexic'.
Hypocrisy, failed climate science and vvussell, are frequently messed up.
No, Gavin, I've been shooting deer.
aila:
Seems you left out the indefinite article. Furthermore, I see you as well-used, of no further use. And, for the avoidance of doubt, I don't see you as an eraser.vvussell, stick to shyting beer and tryping bollachs
Golf Charlie, no doubt that will also go over his pointy wee head.
Gavin, Harvard hopes that vvussell does no further damage to it's reputation. Sadly, it is a bit late.
vvussell inserted some French recently. It was accurately typed, so it must have been copied. His attempt at inserting a word originating in the Highlands of Scotland, must have been typed by himself.
It makes me wonder how much of climate science actually originates with typographical errors. Some former Harvard students might want their Grades reassessed ........
Maybe I have got it all wrong, and it is still Politically Correct in US Academia to discriminate against dyslexics, as vvussell demonstrates. And the deaf/hard of hearing are fair game to vvussell too. He needs to watch what he shoots at, in case it shoots back.
1. 97%
“The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists.” (my emphasis).
Ms Zimmermann sent out two questions to 10,257 scientists these were:
Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
1. Risen
2. Fallen
3. Remained relatively constant
4. No opinion/Don't know
Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
1. Yes
2. No
3. I'm not sure
3146 scientists replied, many of them pointing out that the questions left a lot of scope for interpretation, in terms of what pre-1800 levels were meant, and the interpretation of “significant” in the second question. (As you can see from Fig. XXX the global temperatures have actually been falling since 8000BP). And many scolding Ms. Zimmerman for presuming a vote of scientists’ views on a theory legitimised it.
Ms. Zimmerman did not ask if the scientists thought the warming would be dangerous, and in fact after analysing the results changed her own opinion from humans being the main cause of the warming to “neutral” in her words.
The 3146 respondents were whittled down to 157 “climate scientists” which were further whittled down to 79 climate scientists who’d published in the scientific literature in the last six months. Of the 79 scientists, incredibly, 2 didn’t believe that the temperatures had risen (the likelihood is that they didn’t believe the temperatures had risen beyond that which we could expect from natural causes, but I don’t know for sure).
From the remaining 77 scientists, 75 answered “yes” to the second question, allowing the researchers to say that 75/77 (out of a sample of 3146) i.e. 97% of scientists believe that temperatures have increased and humans caused it.
I don’t think I need comment further 75 scientists out of 10257 asked gives a 97% consensus.
2. 97% Cook et al, a group of social misfits led by a cartoonist who photoshop them as Nazis.
I'll say no more, but will quote Richard Tol and Mike Hulme.
It wasn’t well received by serious scientists.
“The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it.”
Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate and Culture in the Department of Geography at King's College London. He was formerly professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.
“The paper is a treasure trove of how-not-to lessons for a graduate class on survey design and analysis: the sample was not representative, statistical tests were ignored, and the results were misinterpreted.”
Richard Tol, Professor of economics at the University of Sussex and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Kinda papers loved by those who don't want to get to the truth?
geronimo, the statistical techniques you describe put Cook's maths in the top 97% of climate scientists. Cook has been very pleased with this, as he didn't think he was in the top 50%.
Sadly only 3% of climate scientists knew any better, but decided to keep quiet for fear of embarrassing the other half.
I must say that I didn't know the term "pause" was created by the climate alarmists!
I love Cruz's floor wiping skills.
Bad luck on India:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/14/india-says-paris-climate-deal-wont-affect-plans-to-double-coal-output
Bad luck on S. Korea and Japan:
http://www.ibtimes.com/japan-south-korea-say-coal-energy-plans-unchanged-despite-paris-climate-deal-2227603
Bad luck on Greenland
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-14/greenland-may-seek-un-climate-deal-opt-out-amid-emissions-goal
I guess Phil was right when he said "Bad luck on Paris", but little did he know.
Cruz can claim that the 97% study is bogus or, more intriguingly, made of chocolate. It does not make the claim true or valuable in any sense whatsoever. Thus, the claim was rightfully ignored as it always has.
Once again, I remind you that all Cruz had to do was ask about the authority BEHIND the 97% study. He didn't because either he has no comprehension of what he's talking about or because he is playing the crowd. Either way, he sank.
Aila - I presume you have actually read Cook's paper. Even if you have not you will probably be aware that virtually all scientists ( never mind climate scientists) would accept that there has been climatic warming since the coolest period of the Little Ice Age -say over +/- 250 years and that at least since the Neolithic Revolution human. activity has had at least some minor influence on climate. In that context ... 97% of scientists agree..... Is not an unreasonable result. However having read Cook's paper you must be very well aware that this was not good enough to get headlines and so he had to define a sample population in which 97% agreed that the temperature rise was (wholly) anthropogenic. This turned out to be 75 of the 77 members of is hand selected sample. The real ratio is 75 out of the 3146 respondents - ie 2.38% so very close to the reciprocal of the 97%. I trust you don't think this is useful for anything other than propaganda.
Aila, climate scientists wish they had your faith in Cook's 97%. They will be reassured by the confidence you share with the BBC and Guardian, who bet their future on Ed Miliband being Prime Minister by now.
If the hearing room floor needed wiping it was because the Oceanographer of the Navy took a scalpel to Cruz's guts
https://youtu.be/4r2z4s14q-U
Do watch- - 'tis sport to see the Senator hoist on his own canard.
There is a very real possibility that Ted Cruz will be the next President of the United States of America.
Watch that space.
You mean like Peters and Malarky who both ranted on reading from their cue cards citing alarmist nonsense? Or when Peters again submitted Whitehorse's idiotic RICO rambles?
Better yet, when questions were tossed to their pet alarmist cue card reader, Titely, who was unable to respond with science, only with ad hominems, and trite alarmist preachings? Questions that should've been addressed to one of the world's finest experts that are in attendance?
Watch the video, trolls, Senator Cruz was amused several times when the alarmist devotions were spouted by the deluded. Stopped by a consensus wall? Not a chance.
Oh yeah, Titely was a hoot; 90% of the heat is going into the oceans; satellite is, er, ah, adjusted, and, er, uh, not as reliable... As what? The highly cooked falsified land records?
Cruz is playing a very sharp political game. Senator Cruz formed a hearing with several of the world's finest experts on specific topics in attendance.
Rather than recognizing true expertise, a common alarmist failing, all questions from the deluded camps were thrown softball fashion to Titely; who promptly echoed many of the statements from the delusional senators.
Did any of the alarmist crowd there explain any of the graphs Senator Cruz showed? Nope. It's not in their bibles.
Senator Cruz happily recorded all of the nonsense on record, public record. Where those statements can be brought forth to entertain voters for years to come.
Meanwhile, Cruz is also aiming to stick some thermometers where they belong at NOAA.
If Cruz makes President before his investigation gets there; count on the investigation moving forward much faster under the next ranking Senator with some POTUS incentives.
Falsifying official data is a firing offense, with loss of all retirement benefits.
Like Cruz, you guys are failing to understand the issue. That's fine, of course, were it not because Cruz's objective is to take advantage of the climate heathens... which he evidently has.
Regarding the nomination, we'll see how that turns out. But even if he gets it, don't be disappointed if he then starts to promise rainbows.
You pacifist skeptics who have for years hounded around here behind enemy lines, doing little to no online outreach to news sites and Twitter, etc. now expect debate club dweeb Ted Cruz to take up your fight, ignoring that the clear frontrunner, Trump, with now 4X greater polling and 10X greater crowd support is the only candidate to call global warming a "BS hoax." He's the only true fighter in the race, who will destroy Hillary whereas Cruz is just another damn Bible thumper Hillary will play off of to round up current Sanders supporters for a big win. So you sit on blogs chatting amongst youselves while a year passes with climate activism and Trump bashing invading Twitter? Yup, it's been up to maybe five of us serious activists to get 99% of the outreach done. Cruz will thrive under Trump, but Trump will outright lose all political power if Cruz wins. Duh! If you lose your ingenious fighter, nothing happens since Hillary wins it. Cruz is creepy and will get the female urban vote out in opposition to him, whereas chicks dig brash mogul celebrities. I was 100% alone on Twitter, countering hundreds of retweets of the highly effective astronauts/Cop21 video, as you losers filled up comments within skeptical blogs. You folk are pathetic!
"If the hearing room floor needed wiping it was because the Oceanographer of the Navy took a scalpel to Cruz's guts". I don't have time to follow your link; is it to the segment where Titley criticised UAH's method and Cruz had to point out that he was presenting RSS data?
The Aaron Mair video linked by Jonas N (Dec 16, 2015 at 11:36 AM) has less than 6000 views (comments disabled). Cruz has 633,000+ views and 2000+ comments. A battle won, perhaps.
But Cruz probably won't be candidate; and the Democrat will probably beat the probable Republican. This tiny slip up by the alarmists will be effaced from the record in the media that count.
Dozens of commenters here are excellent at commenting data on temperatures, less good at stuff that matters equally – people, voters, their opinions and likely actions.
I see NikfromNYC is making a similar point, sort of.
Russell: hoist on his own canard? That does not make any sense! If you cannot get commonly-used sayings correct, why do you expect others to believe that you can get more complicated issues right?
I am not sure you really watched that video – Dr Titley presented a heavily doctored graph, and proceeded with more heavily adjusted figures, while Senator Cruz responded with questioning about the satellite temperatures. Titley also managed to imply the usual cliché of “cherry-picking” – probably in much the same way that one could be accused of “cherry-picking” that the top of a flight of stairs is where the floor levels off – if you pick a point on the third step down, the floor is not yet level! I am sure that even you would agree that is a stupid argument – the top of the stairs is from where you measure the floor started being level, despite the fact that there may be humps and bumps on that floor between where you are measuring from and the top of the stairs. The impression I had was that Senator Cruz adjourned as he realised that he would rather have lunch than argue with an idiot.
Do the satellite data show that there has been no statistically-significant warming for over 18 years? Well, the answer to that is, “Yes.” Do the radiosonde balloons show that there has been no statistically-significant warming for over 18 years. Oh, look! Another “Yes!” Could there be faults in the two systems of measurement that return the same error? A possibility that cannot be totally discounted, though both systems do use completely different measurement techniques, such that their conclusions being so similar has to lend greater credence to both. The land surface measurements, however, are prone to a wide range of errors, not least being the sparseness of observation stations over large areas of the surface; that it has now been determined that historical surface records have to be “adjusted” (generally downwards, oddly enough) and more recent records being “adjusted” upwards, has to set alarm bells jangling in any rational person’s mind.
p.s. where’s the link to your own blog? Tsk, tsk. Slipping a little, there.
"is it to the segment where Titley criticised UAH's method and Cruz had to point out that he was presenting RSS data?"
Dec 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterGavin
BOOM!