The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

[_Res Ipsa]

Raw data doesn’t lie, and no one who accepts climate science says that it does. But looking at raw data without understanding the context in which it was obtained can lead to false conclusions.

Suppose we have a weather station that recorded the temperature every day at noon for decades. It then changed the time to 9:00 a.m. The raw data would show a sudden decrease in temperature. But there was no actual decrease — the recording time simply changed. Going forward, the raw data have a built-in cooling bias.

The USHCN is a set of weather stations that originally had no set standards for when measurements were taken, where stations should be sited, etc. There was no need for uniformity because their purpose was to measure weather at a particular place — not long term changes in climate.

Over time, changes were made to standardize the stations. The most significant was the time of day that temperature is recorded. That change introduced a significant cooling bias. The good news is that stations can now be compared to each other on an apples to apples basis using raw data. The bad news is that stations can’t be compared to their own past without accounting for changes in recording times, recording equipment, station location, etc.

Tony cherry picks this data set, instead of the data set that is used to measure global temperatures, precisely because he knows that the net effect of changes in the USHCN network is a cooling bias. If the net effect had been a warming bias, he would have never mentioned it. For example, he doesn’t talk about the fact that the GHCN network used to measure global temperature also uses corrected data that results in a lower rate of global warming than is shown by the raw data.

He also fails to talk about the net effect of the corrections to the USHCN data on the global temperature measurement. The answer is almost no effect at all. So, even if we use raw data for those stations, it doesn’t significantly effect the rate of global warming.

Accusing climate scientists of trying to erase the dustbowl is a paranoid delusion. Comparing station data over time require correcting for changes in the measuring tools and methods that introduce bias into the raw data. And that’s exactly what the “corrections” faqs is bleating about do.

Deniers are just fine with adjusting and correcting raw data when they like the results of the corrections. That’s cherry picking — not science.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Whattya wanna bet ldsfaqs pops open the thread, dimly skims RI’s post, feels a surge of frustration, and posts some rambling incoherent nonsense about Liberals?

- Doc

[_DarkHelmet]

3. Stopped Appealing to Authority

Like your appeal to Tony Heller?

4. Stopped Ignoring that there ARE MANY Climate Scientists who are against AGW, and even more who are just silent due to not wanting to lose their jobs.
5. Stopped thinking that it can ONLY be a Climate Scientist who can look at facts and data to make judgments, ESPECIALLY if in contrast the opposite individuals are HIGHLY Intellectually/Scientifically trained and experienced like Tony Heller is. Since when are scientists in general (or even anyone) "incapable" of analyzing data and incapable of being familiar with all the information on a subject and then making an educated judgment?
6. Actually looked at Tony Hellers blog, and saw for yourself that there is likely literally NOBODY more informed on Climate Science claims, history of climate claims, etc. as this guy.

Tony Heller, and others like him, are obviously free to offer their own theories. In fact, opposing theories are encouraged, but those theories are subject to fact checking and peer-review. Tony Heller/Steven Goddard has been debunked many times by many different people and shown to either not understand the research data, or intentionally misrepresent it. Those of us who are not experts in the field must rely on experts to explain it to us in an honest and ethical way so that we can use our logic and reasoning skills to connect the dots and understand why that expert came to the conclusion he/she did.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Tony Heller gets his ass kicked in a youtube debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5fncpSikwk

[_Res Ipsa]

If you want to understand Heller’s MO, this is a pretty good description. https://www.google.com/amp/s/tamino.wor ... r-you/amp/

[_Gunnar]

An important consideration is that regardless of what is or is not true about global warming, the fact remains that transition to green energy economy is already proving to be competitive in price with fossil fuel (especially coal) powered powerplants, and no one can reasonably deny it is more environmentally friendly. It has a tremendous potential for job creation. If the USA falls behind in the renewable energy movement instead of striving to lead and inspire it, we risk losing whatever economic and scientific dominance and advantage we have still (so far) managed to cling to. It should be possible to successfully sell that idea on that basis alone, even if global warming were merely a Chinese Hoax. The Chinese certainly don't believe it is a hoax, and they are taking a commanding lead in developing and exporting green technologies to the rest of the world, much to our potential detriment.

[_ldsfaqs]

Not a SINGLE one of you have addressed the FACTS presented, the Raw Climate Data which clearly shows there is ZERO "Warming" occurring.
All you do is engage in "personal attacks" of me and Tony Heller.

Anyone truly based in facts knows who's the truth-teller here.
Think yourselves "superior" all you want, the facts show otherwise.

Leftists like to claim I'm a "denier", but I've clearly shown in this thread WHO the actual "deniers" are.
You deny the pure science, and instead believe the manipulated science.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Whattya wanna bet ldsfaqs pops open the thread, dimly skims RI’s post, feels a surge of frustration, and posts some rambling incoherent nonsense about Liberals?

- Doc

[_ldsfaqs]

Lies, Damned Lies, And NASA Sea Level Graphs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CffMifh73ZE

More clear proof of the FRAUD by Leftist so-called "scientists", especially Jim Hansen.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Whattya wanna bet ldsfaqs pops open the thread, dimly skims RI’s post, feels a surge of frustration, and posts some rambling incoherent nonsense about Liberals?

- Doc