A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I urge everyone to stop photo-shopping charts.

Lynn, None of the official temp records support what you presented, +0.3C in the past couple years and now above 1C. Definitely the scale on your y axis is wrong.

Your charts that actually compare model projections with actual temp all stop at 2000, how convenient 😉
 
I urge everyone to stop photo-shopping charts.

Lynn, None of the official temp records support what you presented, +0.3C in the past couple years and now above 1C. Definitely the scale on your y axis is wrong.
1 degree C in 100 years is about right.
 
What’s interesting is that Surfacestations.org cites RealClimate.org as a resource, but over there they mainly mock Surfacestations.org, which is a creation of Anthony Watts, a weatherman and well-known skeptic full of deception for the unwitting public.
Watts is a well-known skeptic, but the charge that he is full of deception is simply slanderous. This is another utterly unsubstantiated charge you use with reckless abandon against pretty much anyone who isn’t a true believer. I have little doubt that those at RealClimate mock Watts’ site. Like you, that’s who they are, and what they do.

Ender
 
Watts is a well-known skeptic, but the charge that he is full of deception is simply slanderous. This is another utterly unsubstantiated charge you use with reckless abandon against pretty much anyone who isn’t a true believer. I have little doubt that those at RealClimate mock Watts’ site. Like you, that’s who they are, and what they do.

Ender
I just checked and RealClimate.org only link to a pseudo watts’ site dedicated to disparaging Watts, but not the real thing whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/

Skeptical Science is even linked by Wattsupwiththat, but is the only site tagged as “unreliable”
 
From past experience using Wikipedia in other areas, I have found it to be very accurate and generally unbiased. It makes sense that if it has proven to be accurate in other areas it is more likely to be accurate in this one.
How can someone determine if a Wikipedia page is accurate when they are looking at it?
It is independent of the other committees. It’s director may have been appointed by President Obama, but the majority of the people working there are career non-partisans. Even if you assume Obama to be a corrupting influence (which I do not), it is hard to get an agency to turn out a corrupted report just by appointing a director. I have more confidence in people than that.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)
Did the Inspector General develop that assessment all by himself?
He was in charge of the investigation and has since resigned for unethical behavior of appointing his girlfriend to positions in his agency and promoting her.
Same response as for the EPA. (And it is independent of the EPA, and the UK committees).
National Science Foundation: (U.S.)
  • The National Science Foundation is not an independent committee but a partisan run U.S. government agency where the director (Subra Suresh) was appointed by President Obama.
  • Suresh’s ability to run large organizations is questionable. He quit the NSF after serving less than half of his 6-year term to become President of Carnegie Mellon University only to later resign in just four years making his tenure the shortest in the school’s 117-year history.
  • The National Science Foundation OIG neglected to consider obvious and fundamental questions about Michael Mann’s participation in Phil Jones’ document destruction enterprise and arrived at empirical conclusions that were unsupported by the inadequate record that they had collected.
  • The National Science Foundation OIG report states that it interviewed various parties, but does not give any information on those interviews.
  • Stephen McIntyre who was one the most prominent skeptic involved in Climategate was interviewed by the NSF Inspector General but the report makes no mention of the issues that they discussed in their meeting.
 
How can someone determine if a Wikipedia page is accurate when they are looking at it?
The same way someone determines if a page on populartechnology.net is accurate.
The Environmental Protection Agency is not an independent committee but a partisan run U.S. government agency where director (Dem. Lisa Jackson) was appointed by President Obama…
The National Science Foundation is not an independent committee but a partisan run U.S. government agency…
It is getting to sound like a broken record. Every agency that has cleared “Climategate” of any scientific fraud is a corrupt agency. It strains credulity that so many agencies are corrupt. And I noticed you have not thoroughly smeared the UK agencies yet. What about them? They also cleared “Climategate.”
 
The same way someone determines if a page on populartechnology.net is accurate.
Anyone with an Internet connect cannot edit PopularTechnolog.net like they can Wikipedia.
It is getting to sound like a broken record. Every agency that has cleared “Climategate” of any scientific fraud is a corrupt agency. It strains credulity that so many agencies are corrupt. And I noticed you have not thoroughly smeared the UK agencies yet. What about them? They also cleared “Climategate.”
You clearly know nothing of these whitewash investigations. Partisan run government agencies are biased not necessarily corrupt and are certainly not independent. Nothing has been cleared if you actually understand the material. The so-called UK “investigations” have been thoroughly debunked.

Slanted inquiries (Financial Post, Canada, September 17, 2010) - Archive]

The Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (55 pgs) (The Global Warming Policy Foundation)
Understanding the Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (50 pgs) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
 
Anyone with an Internet connect cannot edit PopularTechnolog.net like they can Wikipedia.
…and that makes all its pages accurate? Remember, you asked me how someone knows a page on Wikipedia is accurate. You have not yet said how someone knows that a page on poptech is accurate. The fact that only poptech can edit is not an answer.
You clearly know nothing of these whitewash investigations.
Discuss issues, not each other.
Partisan run government agencies are biased not necessarily corrupt and are certainly not independent.
They are independent from each other. And the idea that all government agencies are micromanages from the top is a tin-hat conspiracy theory, not worthy of consideration.
The so-called UK “investigations” have been thoroughly debunked.
Again, an unsupported claim. The fact that you found someone who says that is not proof that it is so.
 
…and that makes all its pages accurate? Remember, you asked me how someone knows a page on Wikipedia is accurate. You have not yet said how someone knows that a page on poptech is accurate. The fact that only poptech can edit is not an answer.
And you still did not answer the question.
They are independent from each other. And the idea that all government agencies are micromanages from the top is a tin-hat conspiracy theory, not worthy of consideration.
They are as independent from each other as Obama’s cabinet positions.
Again, an unsupported claim. The fact that you found someone who says that is not proof that it is so.
The proof is in the debunking reports.
 
And you still did not answer the question.
OK, I will answer. You can’t be 100% sure a Wikipedia page is accurate.

Just like you can’t be 100% sure a poptech page is accurate.
They are as independent from each other as Obama’s cabinet positions.
The fact that they are separate groups of people means there are multiple groups saying finding the same truth - that Climategate is a non-story. It is an extraordinary claim that all these confirming findings are controlled by Obama. And you know what they say about extraordinary claims.
 
OK, I will answer. You can’t be 100% sure a Wikipedia page is accurate.

Just like you can’t be 100% sure a poptech page is accurate.
The accuracy of a webpage controlled by an editor and anyone with an Internet connection are two vastly different things.
The fact that they are separate groups of people means there are multiple groups saying finding the same truth - that Climategate is a non-story. It is an extraordinary claim that all these confirming findings are controlled by Obama. And you know what they say about extraordinary claims.
Your denial of Climategate is entertaining. Try reading the following:

Centre of the storm (Maclean’s, December 13, 2009) - Archive]
Scientists Behaving Badly (The Weekly Standard, December 14, 2009) - Archive]
In Denial: The meltdown of the climate campaign (The Weekly Standard, March 15, 2010) - Archive]
Climategate (Part II) A sequel as ugly as the original (The Weekly Standard, December 12, 2011) - Archive]
 
The accuracy of a webpage controlled by an editor and anyone with an Internet connection are two vastly different things.
Yes, the one controlled by a single editor is more likely to be biased and inaccurate, while the one that is open to correction by anyone is less likely. The wisdom of the crowd beats the wisdom of an individual. And I noticed that even though I answered your question about Wikipedia, you did not answer the same question about poptech. So I assume the answer is the same as the one I gave.
Your denial of Climategate is entertaining. Try reading the following:
No, I will not. I am not debating with these bloggers. I cannot ask them a question. I am debating with you. If you find some particular argument of theirs compelling, then you make the argument. I am not going to do your work for you.
 
Yes, the one controlled by a single editor is more likely to be biased and inaccurate, while the one that is open to correction by anyone is less likely. The wisdom of the crowd beats the wisdom of an individual. And I noticed that even though I answered your question about Wikipedia, you did not answer the same question about poptech. So I assume the answer is the same as the one I gave.
What stops a high school drop out with an Internet connection from editing a Wikipedia page before anyone looks at it?
No, I will not. I am not debating with these bloggers. I cannot ask them a question. I am debating with you. If you find some particular argument of theirs compelling, then you make the argument. I am not going to do your work for you.
Bloggers? Those are news magazines. Don’t be afraid to read the material and learn something about climategate.
 
And a highly authoritative writing came well before that, written by God Himself, called the 10 Commandments. One of them specifies “Thou shalt not kill.” I think that and others can also support the notion that we should not destroy or harm other people’s property or livelihood.

Since people are dying from GW (from heatwaves, droughts/famines, disease spread, etc.), and people’s property and livelihoods are being harmed from it, and we humans are for the most part causing GW, then that and other commandments apply.

I didn’t need a PhD in Moral theology to understand in the late 1980s, when I became aware that GW may be contributing to droughts and famines in Africa, that I myself had to do what I could to reduce my emissions, and tell others about the issue.

To our astonishment, my husband and I found we could lower our direct and indirect GHG emissions while saving money and without lowering our living standard, down to some 60% below our 1990 emissions. I would have been willing to lower my living standard and spend money with net loss (I was becoming an OCDS Carmelite then and making a promise of “poverty”), but my husband wasn’t so willing, which led us to find these money-saving solutions – and that’s great, since I can honestly tell people now:

“Don’t be afraid, you can mitigate CC without losing anything or lowering your living standard. Don’t be afraid, Jesus is with you a;ways. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and its righteousness and all things will be added unto you. Hallelujah!!!.”
Actually, if you go back the the Jewish texts, the commandment is “thou shalt not murder and innocent person”. Moral theologians are not going to assign a mortal sin in failing to be as efficient as you may be, for deaths in Africa.
 
What stops a high school drop out with an Internet connection from editing a Wikipedia page before anyone looks at it?.
The page in question has been seen by many people. It is not brand new.

You could go and fix it if you think it is in error.
 
Yes, the one controlled by a single editor is more likely to be biased and inaccurate, while the one that is open to correction by anyone is less likely. The wisdom of the crowd beats the wisdom of an individual.
This might seem reasonable in theory but the real world has a way of not adhering to our theories (see: climate change). Here’s how things really work in the wonderful world of Wikipedia and MMGW.*I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.
*
I soon found others who had the same experience: They would try to squeeze in any dissent, or even correct an obvious slander against a dissenter, and Petersen or some other censor would immediately snuff them out.
No, I will not. I am not debating with these bloggers. I cannot ask them a question. I am debating with you. If you find some particular argument of theirs compelling, then you make the argument. I am not going to do your work for you.
Ray Bradley to Mike Mann, Jan 2, 2007 regarding a graph included in the 1995 IPCC report…that no one knows where it came from.I believe this graph in the 1995 IPCC Report originated in a (literally) grey piece of literature that Jack Eddy used to publish called “Earth Quest”. It was designed for, and distributed to, high school teachers…I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I recall getting a fax from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked me to review. Where he got his version from, I don’t know. I think I scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some way, but have no recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it further, I don’t know. But as it was purely schematic (and appears to go through around 1950) perhaps it’s not so bad. …In any case, the graph has no objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a “visual guess” at what happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for some overly persistent inquisitor… (so make sure you don’t leave such things on the table…). What made the last millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris Folland must have seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC Chapter he was editing.

Ender
 
This might seem reasonable in theory but the real world has a way of not adhering to our theories (see: climate change). Here’s how things really work in the wonderful world of Wikipedia and MMGW.*I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.
*
I soon found others who had the same experience: They would try to squeeze in any dissent, or even correct an obvious slander against a dissenter, and Petersen or some other censor would immediately snuff them out.
That is the wisdom of the crowd in action.

Publications like populartechnology.net know they have no reputation on their own, so the only way they can make their view appear credible is to tear down every other established source of information. This silly attack on Wikipedia for a list of organizations clearing climategate which can be easily verify independently of Wikipedia is a perfect example of that effort.
Ray Bradley to Mike Mann, Jan 2, 2007 regarding a graph included in the 1995 IPCC report…that no one knows where it came from.I believe this graph in the 1995 IPCC Report originated in a (literally) grey piece of literature that Jack Eddy used to publish called “Earth Quest”. It was designed for, and distributed to, high school teachers…I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I recall getting a fax from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked me to review. Where he got his version from, I don’t know. I think I scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some way, but have no recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it further, I don’t know. But as it was purely schematic (and appears to go through around 1950) perhaps it’s not so bad. …In any case, the graph has no objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a “visual guess” at what happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for some overly persistent inquisitor… (so make sure you don’t leave such things on the table…). What made the last millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris Folland must have seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC Chapter he was editing.
Your point?
 
The accuracy of a webpage controlled by an editor and anyone with an Internet connection are two vastly different things.
Indeed. The former rests soley on the knowledge, intelligence, and integrity of the editor, the Wiki relies on the collective knowledge and intelligence of everyone in the community, and their ability to review and edit each other’s work.

With Wiki, there may be transient acts of “vandalism”, but they get discovered and fixed. WIth the a webpage, I suppose that all we can do is ignore its phony content, and hope that all readers have the knowledge, intelligence, and integrity to refrain from propagating the phoniness. We can see, however, that that doesn’t work out so well.
 
Indeed. The former rests soley on the knowledge, intelligence, and integrity of the editor, the Wiki relies on the collective knowledge and intelligence of everyone in the community, and their ability to review and edit each other’s work.

With Wiki, there may be transient acts of “vandalism”, but they get discovered and fixed. WIth the a webpage, I suppose that all we can do is ignore its phony content, and hope that all readers have the knowledge, intelligence, and integrity to refrain from propagating the phoniness. We can see, however, that that doesn’t work out so well.
They get discovered and fixed and then re-edited again, it’s an endless cycle. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top