Arcadia Discussion Zone

Forums dedicated to history's mysteries, Rennes-le-Château and beyond…

Read the Arcadia Forum House Rules

It is currently 21 Aug 2017 7:32 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 982 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
Author Message
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2016 5:56 am 
Offline
High King

Joined: 04 May 2009 7:03 am
Posts: 2019
Location: Australia
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2016 9:25 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2010 10:35 pm
Posts: 1182
Location: Santa Cruz
Well that's a bit silly Wombat. All the protections for the bears put into place by the "polar bear countries" have been enacted in the past 60 years. Also, population estimates for them are dicey at best as their range makes it more than difficult to be accurate. In modern times there is at least an attempt to measure populations somewhat scientifically, as opposed to the older method of "asking around".

_________________
"The earlier culture will become a heap of rubble and finally a heap of ashes, but spirit will hover over the ashes."

Ludwig Wittgenstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2016 9:23 am 
Offline
High King

Joined: 04 May 2009 7:03 am
Posts: 2019
Location: Australia
Caelum wrote:
Well that's a bit silly Wombat. All the protections for the bears put into place by the "polar bear countries" have been enacted in the past 60 years. Also, population estimates for them are dicey at best as their range makes it more than difficult to be accurate. In modern times there is at least an attempt to measure populations somewhat scientifically, as opposed to the older method of "asking around".

I agree with you Caelum. Right on.

And that’s why the doomsters’ position is fundamentally flawed.

Be they the Malthusians, the Club of Rome, the Sierra Club or the IPCC, they all overlook (or choose to ignore) that which you have pointed out. Improvements. Innovation. Human ingenuity. Creativity.

In 1961, Uspensky gave an estimate of 5,000 to 8,000 Polar Bears. Harrington gave an estimate in 1964 of 6,000 to 7,000. Even in 1965 it was clear (see page 7) that there was considerable doubt about the numbers. By the 1990s things hadn’t improved much, but that didn’t stop the doomsters like Al Gore hyping Polar Bears as a cause célèbre of his so-called catastrophic manmade global warming, did it?

There has been a significant improvement in the integrity of the population estimates for the Greenland, USA and Canadian sectors since that time. And it shows the Polar Bears are thriving.

And that’s the very point. Bad science allows those of low integrity or with other agendas to make alarmist claims of doom. Better science puts a totally different perspective on things. But it takes years to correct the erroneous hype – especially when people’s pay-cheques depend on it not being corrected.

Of course, there’s always another side. If the Polar Bear numbers are increasing what’s happening to all those poor lovable seal pups?

Image

https://youtu.be/0mgnf6t9VEc

Where’s Pamela Anderson when she's needed?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2016 7:21 am 
Offline
High King

Joined: 04 May 2009 7:03 am
Posts: 2019
Location: Australia
Fake News: Climate Scientists ‘Save’ Data From Donald Trump

James Delingpole

Quote:
The latest fake news climate story has the winning headline: “Scientists are frantically copying US climate data fearing it might vanish under Trump.”

This is brazen, hilarious and spectacularly misleading. No one has done more damage to “climate data” in the past three decades than the corrupt, politicized activist scientists who are now afraid that they may be neutered or booted out of office by the incoming administration.

One of the many shocking revelations of the 2009 Climategate emails was that in some cases the raw temperature data had been destroyed or lost by the scientists whose job it was to maintain it. Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia admitted that they had not kept “the original raw data” for reasons of “data storage availability”.
That, in turn, prompted a lawsuit by the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group, is arguing that U.S. EPA’s climate policies rely on raw data that have been destroyed and are therefore unreliable.

The nonprofit group — a staunch critic of U.S. EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases — petitioned (pdf) the agency last week to reopen the public comment period on its proposed “endangerment finding” because the data set had been lost (E&ENews PM, Oct. 9).


But climate scientists familiar with the data insist that the reports are based on sound science and that the data in question was altered as part of standard operating procedure to ensure consistency across reporting stations.

For the alarmists now to turn around and claim that the Trump administration is unfit to look after data that they’ve already lost and destroyed is, as Tony Heller puts it, an “Orwellian Climate Moment“:

The same people who have been corrupting temperature data, erasing it, overwriting it, and pushing the biggest scientific scam in history, now say they are trying to protect the data from President Trump.

NOAA overwrites their monthly temperature data, and wanted $260,000 to recover data which should have been downloadable online in a matter of seconds

Fee Notification Letter – 2014-001602

It is, however, all too typical of the kind of posturing and projection we can expect to see from the climate alarmist establishment as their elaborate Ponzi scheme begins to collapse with the advent of President Donald Trump.

Trump, it is becoming clearer by the day, is in no mood to show any mercy to the cabal of scientists at institutions like NASA GISS and NOAA who have been manipulating raw temperature data — torturing it till it screams — in order to exaggerate the appearance of 20th century warming.

The Washington Post mentions, disapprovingly, a Trump adviser calling for NASA to focus on space exploration and not climate research.

But how can this possibly be a bad thing? The clue is in the name: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA’s dabbling with climate science is bureaucratic overreach. Under Trump it will hopefully return to its core function, with its climate activism at NASA GISS, run by alarmist Gavin Schmidt, swiftly deep-sixed.

Activists are now talking about a purge at the Department of Energy, where Trump’s transition teams have sent out a memo, asking for the names of employees particularly associated with climate change.

It would seem an innocuous request — and shouldn’t the president know who is working on what the left tells us is the highest priority of government, the greatest threat to national security? Apparently not (emphasis added):

Reuters news service examined the memo, which contains 74 questions, including a request for a list of all department employees and contractors who attended the annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within the last five years, and a list of the professional affiliations.

The missive also requested a list of all department employees or contractors who have attended any meetings on the social cost of carbon, and for a list of all publications written by Energy Department employees over the last three years

The memo also asked for the names of the 20 top salaried employees at the department’s labs, and a list of all websites maintained or contributed to by lab staff during work hours.”


If you are a professional alarmist on the climate change gravy train, this is perhaps very sinister. But it certainly shouldn’t be for the U.S. taxpayer: the Department of Energy should be about energy for the U.S. consumer and economy, and not — as it has become under its green activist staffers — the Department of Suppressing Cheap Energy To Appease The Green Sky Goddess.

The pick of former Texas Governor Rick Perry as the Department’s presumed next head is yet further proof of how serious Trump is in taking on the Green Blob. Like the proposed new head of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt, Perry is no friend of Big Eco. He has one of the best job creation records of any governor in American history.

Meanwhile, if any government employees really are planning to “protect” government data by transferring it onto private servers, they ought to be aware that what they are doing might be a federal crime. Just ask Edward Snowden. Or Hillary Clinton. They know.


See original article for links:
http://www.breitbart.com/california/201 ... ald-trump/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2017 6:59 am 
Offline
High King

Joined: 04 May 2009 7:03 am
Posts: 2019
Location: Australia
For the record:

Image

Image

Image

https://science.house.gov/sites/republi ... iedman.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2017 4:45 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2008 8:31 pm
Posts: 769
Location: U.K.
The two posts above give evidence of the same thing: That now the climate change denier's argument in the Trump administration is turning to ad hominem attacks. If you can't argue against the message, destroy the messenger.

Breitbart writer Delingpole brings up the old 2009 University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) smear.
This was answered back in 2009 as recorded here:

Quote:
Climate scientists are refuting claims that raw data used in critical climate change reports has been destroyed, rendering the reports and policies based on those reports unreliable.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group, is arguing that U.S. EPA's climate policies rely on raw data that have been destroyed and are therefore unreliable. The nonprofit group -- a staunch critic of U.S. EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases -- petitioned (pdf) the agency last week to reopen the public comment period on its proposed "endangerment finding" because the data set had been lost (E&ENews PM, Oct. 9).

But climate scientists familiar with the data insist that the reports are based on sound science and that the data in question was altered as part of standard operating procedure to ensure consistency across reporting stations.

At issue is raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, including surface temperature averages from weather stations around the world. The data was used in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reports that EPA has used in turn to formulate its climate policies.

Citing a statement on the research unit's Web site, CEI blasted the research unit for the "suspicious destruction of its original data." According to CRU's Web site, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

"When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world."

Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."

Tom Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., noted that the conclusions of the IPCC reports are based on several data sets in addition to the CRU, including data from NOAA, NASA and the United Kingdom Met Office. Each of those data sets basically show identical multi-decadal trends, Karl said.

Still, CEI's general counsel Sam Kazman remains skeptical of the IPCC's conclusions. The fact that the report relies on several data sets "doesn't really answer the issue," he said.

CEI and Cato Institute senior fellow Patrick Michaels argued that the "destruction of [CRU's] raw data violates basic scientific norms regarding reproducibility, which are especially important in climatology."

Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, dismissed that argument. "Raw data were not secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature," he wrote in comments to the advocacy group Climate Science Watch.

Santer said CRU's major findings were replicated by other groups, including the NOAA climatic data center, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and also in Russia.


http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/14/14greenwire-scientists-return-fire-at-climate-skeptics-in-31175.html


But hey, just like Wombat did back in this thread, if you think you can get away with it, smear away.
Wombat was soundly thrashed by the argument. He lost because of the facts, but his personality remains intact. He just can't help himself. Same with Trump and his administration.

The letter in Wombat's second post centres on the work of Thomas Karl, coincidentally the same Thomas (Tom) Karl who featured in the report above by standing up for the data used back in 2009 that instigated the whole global warming concern.

Does the 2017 letter seek to investigate any data? - No. The Trump administration knows there is no point. They know by now that global warming is taking place. The letter is demanding lists of people and the emails they have written, or, if they have attended certain types of meetings, simply lists of their names.
The facts cannot be destroyed, so destroy the people who researched those facts.

Gas chambers by another name.

_________________
www.hiddenlandscapes.co.uk

step by step we shall build it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2017 7:07 am 
Offline
High King

Joined: 04 May 2009 7:03 am
Posts: 2019
Location: Australia
RM says:
Quote:
Does the 2017 letter seek to investigate any data? No.


Quote:
Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'
By Tom Feilden
Science correspondent, Today programme

Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests. ......

............

Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies.
"The idea here is to take a bunch of experiments and to try and do the exact same thing to see if we can get the same results."
You could be forgiven for thinking that should be easy. Experiments are supposed to be replicable.
The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions.
Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth.
After meticulous research involving painstaking attention to detail over several years (the project was launched in 2011), the team was able to confirm only two of the original studies' findings.
Two more proved inconclusive and in the fifth, the team completely failed to replicate the result.
"It's worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity," says Dr Errington.
Concern over the reliability of the results published in scientific literature has been growing for some time.
According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments

..............................


For its part, the journal Nature is taking steps to address the problem.
It's introduced a reproducibility checklist for submitting authors, designed to improve reliability and rigour.
"Replication is something scientists should be thinking about before they write the paper," says Ritu Dhand, the editorial director at Nature.
"It is a big problem, but it's something the journals can't tackle on their own. It's going to take a multi-pronged approach involving funders, the institutes, the journals and the researchers."
But we need to be bolder, according to the Edinburgh neuroscientist Prof Malcolm Macleod.
"The issue of replication goes to the heart of the scientific process."

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environ ... 78?SThisFB

The Karl study can't be replicated because they destroyed/lost the manipulated data, so that nobody could see it.

But then, why would anybody expect the media to tell them that?

And then there's this quote of Tom Karl from above:

Quote:
Tom Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., noted that the conclusions of the IPCC reports are based on several data sets in addition to the CRU, including data from NOAA, NASA and the United Kingdom Met Office. Each of those data sets basically show identical multi-decadal trends, Karl said.

But yet his 2015 paper refutes this by adjusting that very data because it did not suit his hypothesis. And then loses or destroys the data, so that no replication of his study is possible.

And this:

Quote:
"Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."


If you don't hold the data no replication is possible. The adjusted data therefore has no integrity.

And finally, why did NOAA not behave in accordance with the law and fully provide the information sought by Lamar Smith's Committee?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 982 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group