Strikeout: Court-requested tutorial did not go as planned for Team Climate Change
Three strikes: Expert witnesses challenged by judge over graph, climate history, and claims of a “smoking gun”.
Last week I noted that U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California is overseeing the lawsuit that the cities of Oakland and San Francisco filed last fall against six fossil fuel giants. The two cities are seeking to hold the oil companies liable for the cost of infrastructure upgrades and remediation expected as they deal with effects of rising sea levels.
Alsup requested both sides present information related to the science of climate change, in the form of a tutorial, so he could become verse on the science and terminology. My first report on the tutorial featured the sound analysis offered by Team Big Oil.
Climate change activists are used to having their assertions accepted by an unquestioning media. So, it is likely they thought they were safe from detailed inquiry in a Northern California court. However, when Team Climate Change was up at bat, and it appears they might have stuck out.
During the tutorial, the judge pointed to several inaccuracies in the data and materials provided by the plaintiffs, sometimes to the embarrassment of climate change activists.
Alsup also castigated the plaintiff’s claims of a “smoking gun” document that would prove the conspiracy claims true. The plaintiffs pointed to a report that the companies had in their possession as proof they knew about the nefarious effects of climate change in 1995.
The “smoking gun” document in question proved to be a regurgitated summary of a 1995 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At the time of its release, the report was subject to significant scrutiny by many in the scientific community because it was riddled with huge uncertainties.
“There was a conspiratorial document within the defendants about how they knew good and well that global warming was right around the corner,” Alsup said. “Well, it turned out it wasn’t quite that. What it was, was a slide show that somebody had gone to the IPCC and was reporting on what the IPCC had reported, and that was it. Nothing more.”
Perhaps the part of the exchange that warmed my skeptic’s heart was when Alsup chided one expert witness about his graph and asked another about the cause of the Ice Age.
…Judge Alsup started quietly. He flattered the plaintiffs’ first witness, Oxford physicist Myles Allen, by calling him a “genius,” but he also reprimanded Mr. Allen for using a misleading illustration to represent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a graph ostensibly about temperature rise that did not actually show rising temperatures.
Then the pointed questions began. Gary Griggs, an oceanographer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, struggled with the judge’s simple query: “What do you think caused the last Ice Age?”
The professor talked at length about a wobble in the earth’s orbit and went on to describe a period “before there were humans on the planet,” which “we call hothouse Earth.” That was when “all the ice melted. We had fossils of palm trees and alligators in the Arctic,” Mr. Griggs told the court. He added that at one time the sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than today.
Mr. Griggs then recounted “a period called ‘snow ballers,’ ” when scientists “think the entire Earth was frozen due to changes in things like methane released from the ocean.
Legal Insurrection readers may remember my piece on mass extinction events, which show that catastrophic climate change has occurred several times prior to the worldwide use of fossil fuels. I suspect it is going to be difficult to convince the judge that Team Big Oil has significant liability for a small change in the level of carbon dioxide, an essential plant nutrient.
It appears that the legal umpire did some homework before the tutorial, and called the factual strikes as he saw them.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Why is it that the climate change believers have a religious zeal for altered data, pushed scenarios via computer modeling based on altered and cherry picked data, and alarmist theories which at the very least are questionable, and refuse to see it any other way? They mock “deniers” as being anti-science, yet they ignore scientific data that refutes their claims. Boy, it’s hard to keep up with their deceptions without a scorecard.
They also ignore the fact that the moment they altered data to get a desired result it immediately became Anti-science. Remember to a real scientist any outcome is acceptable.
Real scientists also know that science is very rarely truly settled (never settled is the safer assumption). Whenever someone shouts “the science is settled” I know that at the best I’m listening to a second rater.
I think this is an indirect result of their creation of a false narrative. We can see similar instances with the Trump-Russia news. And again in the Trayvon Martin case.
Remember how we were getting expert legal analysis on testimony was given in court and then the media report the exact opposite of what happened? I think Liberals are more inclined 2 to deliberately deceive themselves in order to make life more palatable – follow your own Bliss, avoid negativity, avoid information brokers who disrupt your carefully-crafted bubble.
It’s not that they’re stupid, is that they deliberately ignore facts that interfere with the fantasy alternate reality they have created.
All they need from the climate science crowd is some kind of framework to build their alternate reality around. That’s why it doesn’t matter to them that it fit together correctly or follow logical patterns or stay true to a single certain set of principles. They are just looking for a touchstone to help them make believe
Fen, I mostly agree about the false narrative, and a string of such has led to libs credibility being damaged.
Nevertheless, we do have a warming trend and polar ice is melting. Considering the stakes, we need to be looking at mitigation, for example, not rebuilding Dallas, New Orleans or any other highly populated area on lowland. People will be happy to take handouts again and again if it is not costing them.Zoning should take into account flooding, and either make people build on 10′ high foundations which cannot be used for anything other than storage, and not insuring losses of stuff stored in the floodplain. In the case of hurricane prone areas, no structures should be built on floodplains. Any area which sees multiple so called 100 year events needs to reevaluate their standards.
“In the case of hurricane prone areas, no structures should be built on floodplains. ”
Terrific. No building on the entire Eastern Seaboard, or on the Gulf Coast. Let’s also depopulate all of our Hurricane Alley, and don’t forget staying out of earthquake areas.
Or, we can change our building codes, and map the flood-prone areas, so that people can know where to build, and where to put the land to other uses.
Global warming is slow. People can deal with its consequences by moving out of the way.
Oh Darn!
You mean the Thieving Leftists aren’t hawking
Global Winter anymore?
I must have missed some REALLY UN-IMPORTANT Leftist propaganda there somewhere. Snark.
If one looks around the world and studies history one notices that a lot cities have moved or otherwise accommodated changing sea levels, the silting of rivers etc. Ephesus and Bruges had to deal with the silting of their ports. The first moved and the latter built a new port (Zeebrugge)connected to the old by canal. Pisa and Venice were rivals at one time and of comparable size. The Italian peninsula is tilting and water levels dropped in Pisa and rose in Venice. Venice adapted better than Pisa and remained an important city for centuries longer.
Do we have a warming trend at the moment? Or have we gone into a cooling trend? North polar ice is melting (or was until a few years ago); south polar ice is only increasing.
Oh Yeah!
I’ve been so sceered of cough syrup with Sciddles since then.
I bet Mark Steyn is going, damn, why didn’t I draw a judge like that!
Public scams aren’t going over well these days.
How clinton and her gang must long for the old days.
Same with the likes of Jeb!Bush.
McConnell And Chao: As Corrupt As The Clintons:
https://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2018/03/19/mcconnell-chao-corrupt-clintons/
I like it when the umpire would act like he was pulling a chain when calling a watched third strike. After the call the batter would head back to the dugout with his head down low.
These climate shysters should be hanging their heads down low after this display.
“After the call the batter would head back to the dugout with his head down low.”
They have no shame because they have no morals. If anything, they might feel chagrined at not having another whopper lie ready to tell. Remember how seamlessly they all “transitioned”* from “global warming” to “global climate” change, like they were all listening in on the same party line.
*Did they “transition” or, like President Barack Hussein Obama on the matter of same-sex marriage, “evolve”?
Follow the money. It’s as easy as that.
Studies that show an upcoming disaster get more studies funded.
Just try to get funding if you say “Global climate change *might* up the local temp. in many places as much as a degree over the next century, and the absolute most humanity could do to stop it would be to spend trillions of dollars, reduce huge swaths of the population to poverty, and delay the end result by at most a year. Maybe.”
Follow the money is right. An example follows.
A close family member was completing her PhD at one of the world’s leading schools of public health. The school had been receiving numerous federal grants to study many thorny issues of legitimate concern. Then along comes the anthrax scare in the wake of 9/11 and under political pressure the government flipped public health spending to studying anthrax which had been studied to death in the 19th and early 20th centuries. To keep their programs afloat school after school shelved more worthwhile research and applied for funds to study anthrax. And, any grant request that hoped to demonstrate that anthrax was well understood and easy to manage would not get funded.
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
What are the first 3 questions you should ask about everything, Alex?
There is merit to reducing population. Too many people competing for the same resources makes everyone miserable.
The time may come if nanotech develops its full potential that resources will be plentiful, but current population growth rates cannot continue without staggering advancements.
Malthus was wrong before, and his acolytes will be proven wrong, now.
Populations of bacteria, algae and many plants and animals are easily prodded into oversupply followed by collapse. Human populations, however, have some self-regulatory capacity. The infant mortality rate is inversely related to the number of human children born. That is, when the infant mortality rate drops, so does the number of births, especially in countries with good medical treatment.
Humans are also clever, and well capable of both increasing food production and traveling, to accommodate population increases.
Invention, travel, and a less-than replacement birth rate will easily deal with any perceived overpopulation by humans of this earth.
“There is merit to reducing population.”
Sure, you start.
Left wing nutcases like you have been predicting one disaster or another for the last century. Wrong every damn time. Crawl back in your hole.
Bullsh*t. Population is the greatest and most productive resource. The more people the more prosperity. Go read some of Julian Simon’s research.
I watched a documentary on the Antarctic and the deep drill they used to see what was beneath the ice. When they pulled the hollow drill out after over a mile of drilling they discovered fossils of temperate growth of trees and plant life. As they worked their way up the core they found frozen ground and then temperate growth fossils again. This told me that even without mankind, the Earth has gone through many cycles and there wasn’t a single oil burning vehicle on Earth at the time! But hey, let’s ignore science and blame the oil companies.
While they were digging, did they come up with another excuse why klinton lost?
Just feel lucky they didn’t dig up some virus or bacteria that was before our time and we have no resistance to.
Gremlin1974: You mean, like this? https://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/The-Thing-cosmic-horror.jpg
One of my favorite movies….
HEHE, at least you can see that one and flamethrower it! It’s the one you can’t see that worries me.
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton is frigid.
“Mr. Griggs then recounted “a period called ‘snow ballers,’ ”
I think that should read “Snowball Earth.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
Ignorance. Where would modern journalism be without it?
Respected?
Ah. Right up there with the news reporter who reported that a near-drowning victim was alive because of the “millennium diving reflex”.
(juggles baseball bat)
Hey all you smug liberals, remember when you insisted the science was settled and compared me to a holocaust denier for doubting you?
The line starts on the left.
I particularly enjoyed being called a flat-Earther.
This is proof enough that God exists. Another power grab by the climatologists attempting judicial validation of their scam, the oil companies lay down and agree with the scam, and the case is being decided in San Francisco.
But by someone in miracle, we get a fair hearing from a judge with an engineering background who is the last person on earth you want to run 3 card monte on.
So I checked my violent tendencies and very very grudgingly put my faith in the Rule of Law and God says “See, you dumbass. I had it covered. Now stop going wobbly and remember Vengeance is mine alone”
Why do they lie? For the most part they don’t. They start with the assumption that their narrative has already been independently established as the truth. Therefore any findings they make that don’t exactly fit it must be experimental error, or due to some confounding factor which they assiduously look for — and sometimes find; whereas any findings that do fit are assumed to be correct and therefore there’s no point in looking for confounding factors or errors.
Here’s an actual f’rinstance: A weather station is at an airport that has become busy over the years, and they recognise that this is inappropriate, so they move it to a higher and less polluted location where the readings will be more reliable. The new location, however, is cooler than the old one, so to be able to make comparisons all the historical readings for that station must be adjusted downward. So, they say, let’s have both stations running for a while, and see what the difference between them is. If we find that over the course of a month the difference is a steady 5°C then we will simply deduct 5°C from all the old readings and we will now be able to make valid comparisons over time. They don’t notice the flaw, because they assume almost all the warming over time at the airport is due to global factors, not local ones.
Fen correctly brings up the saga of Little Saint Trayvon. Here too, how you view the evidence is inevitably colored by how you approach the whole story. Even many pro-Zimmerman accounts will say that he mistakenly thought Martin to be a burglar, or even that he recklessly jumped to this conclusion, and therefore embarked on the foolish stalking that almost cost him his life, and did cost that of an innocent boy. Few ask themselves how they know Zimmerman was mistaken. How they know Martin wasn’t doing exactly what Zimmerman thought he was: casing the house in contemplation of a future burglary. Had Martin not died that night, would the home owner have woken up a few mornings later to find all his valuables gone? We can’t ever know, but it seems at least a reasonable possibility, but one that never occurs to those who start with the assumption that this was a tragedy of errors that should never have happened.
Sounds right. Except that I heard our weather man say on television news that the station 1.5 miles from the airport is 1.5F cooler than his NOAA weather cluster at the airport. But he is only allowed to report the higher of the 2. The NOAA station was affected by the UHE and exhaust, and NOAA thought that was just fine. The staff did not.
So everyone’s home thermometers are more correct than the media and NOAA record.
Good explanation, except I wouldn’t use innocent to describe Trayvon Martin. He did have a chance to go back to his house and chose to circle around and attack instead..that turned out to be a fatal mistake.
Um, try reading instead of skimming.
You must have nothing going on in your life if you took the time to post such a long-winded worthless comment.
Says the person who presumably took the time to read it, lmao.
Hat tip Milhouse, and that’s twice in a week we’ve agreed. No more of that lest we trigger the Doom.
I’ll never forget that trial. The coverage here was spot-on, best I’ve ever seen. And I already knew the media was biased but I had never seen them just so brazenly lie in front of hard facts and without any sense of embarrassment or shame. It was surreal.
It’s like catching your wife in bed with your best friend and she maintains there’s no one else in the room.
I don’t understand how people can do that. I told some big lies and I got good at it because my father was an attorney and not much slipped by him. And a good part of it is convincing yourself, even creating false visualisations and memories, so that you don’t trip his truth sense.
But when the truth finally does come out and I realize I’m busted, I could never carry on as if by believing hard enough I could change reality that’s just crazy.
“No officer, I’m not covered in blood and that body found in the trunk has nothing to do with it…”
????
It’s the equivalent of asking “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes.”
What you are watching is the natural outcome of an effort that turned an opportunity into a trap. Perhaps the greatest issue of all is how hardly anyone in the world outside of those who perform research actually understand how science works and how it all fits together so they will have trouble understand how the system was bastardized obtain money. I thought I knew how research worked after I earned my Ph.D. in Chemistry, but I was wrong. I learned so much more about the system and process in my first year of my postdoctoral studies that I realized how little I really did know beforehand.
>
What has happened is that a number of people hijacked the research system for their own benefit. Imagine what would happen if you informed everyone that if they do not receive funding, then they will lose their job to someone who can obtain funding. Now imagine being told that the funding rate for meritable grants is only 15% at best, but if you assume global warming to be real and you submit a grant that studies something about how global warming is bad, then your grant funding rate jumps to almost 75%. Now understand the population you are speaking to is extremely bright and more motivated than a typical Type A personality, then what do you expect the result to be?
>
Policies by the UN, Obama, and others, fostered a group think effort to show global warming to be real or else people lose their job. They used the system and the extraordinarily competitive nature of researchers to lure them into believing something that was not true in a modern day form of Lysenkoism. Now that everything is becoming unraveled, these researchers are being shown as the frauds they are, how they sold their research souls for a few pieces of silver, and how so many are now going to be destroyed for this. Worse yet is the damage this has done to science in how it has lost so much credibility and such.
>
People are going to be asking why such obvious errors in thinking were not seen beforehand. They will ask why so much effort was spent on something so obviously flawed. They will discover how a handful of high profile people hid information, lied to the public, falsified data, and so forth, all in an effort to maintain this illusion of global warming. Worse still are the numbers of legitimate scientists who questioned the obvious, who asked the right questions, and who were destroyed professionally for daring to do so. I sincerely doubt the public will ever trust science and scientists ever again once the full story of this debacle emerges.
He added that at one time the sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than today.
Ha. More like 600 feet in the late Cretaceous. This business of fretting over a few centimeters change in a century is just noise.
Since I live in Kansas, at one time this place was a shallow sea so long that we have thick limestone layers, and several times in history we’ve had glaciers put a hundred feet of ice over the ground. We can handle a half-degree maybe possibly if they guess right over the next century.
With their launching of the lawsuit against the major oil companies, I think that they are beginning to realize that they are running out of other people’s money to spend. They are going to need the cash, and that right quickly.
Calling this charade junk science is an insult to junk science. You knew they had a loser on their hands when they had to re-brand from global warming to climate change.
I’m wondering if this will be the climate change equivalent of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
AGW is a perfect example of how politics befouls science.
Sierra Club used to worry about the population of the US. Until they received a grant with one stipulation, quit worrying about that. They took the money even though the science is clear that any third world person coming to the USA vastly increases his footprint and pollution in the US.
“Here’s an actual f’rinstance: A weather station is at an airport that has become busy over the years, and they recognise that this is inappropriate, so they move it to a higher and less polluted location where the readings will be more reliable. The new location, however, is cooler than the old one, so to be able to make comparisons all the historical readings for that station must be adjusted downward.”
Only, the more likely scenario is that they didn’t relocate the the weather station, and the reason the temperature readings were rising is because the station becomes surrounded by a black tarmac which reflects heat.
Um, that was, as I wrote, an actual case, so no, there’s no “more likely scenario”. What happened is what happened.
Stupid.
Whores doin what whores do. Regardless as to whether they have a college pedigree or are ladies of the night.
Wait until they discover that the only gas that will counteract greenhouse gasses is second hand cigarette smoke.
Milhouse: Here’s an actual f’rinstance: A weather station is at an airport that has become busy over the years, and they recognise that this is inappropriate, so they move it to a higher and less polluted location where the readings will be more reliable. The new location, however, is cooler than the old one, so to be able to make comparisons all the historical readings for that station must be adjusted downward.
The process is called homogenization, a process that is also subject to peer review. Independent statistical analysis that doesn’t rely on homogenization of the raw, adjusted data shows the same trend. Furthermore, the satellite record since 1979 supports the same trend.
Yes, we know all about the warmenists’ “peer review” process. Sorry, mate, the East Anglia emails blew that one right out of the water.
And the satellite record doesn’t support it until you apply Hanson’s fraudulent “adjustments”.
Photosynthesis – Plants/Plankton turning Sunlight/CO2/H2O into Food/O2; neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. It helps plants resist drought/damage/disease, extends growing seasons & lets plants move higher in altitude & Latitudes; just as it shrinks deserts, plants using H2O more efficiently. As CO2 levels rise, photosynthesis flourishes & plants take in more CO2, sparking more growth, photosynthesis & CO2 uptake. Rising temperatures also extend growing seasons, help babies, increase net rainfall & save lives.
This Cradle of Life is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 50 years ago.
There is no human technology advanced enough to accurately determine the average temperature of the planet within at least 5-10 degrees Celsius. They rely on models, extrapolations and approximations.
Besides, global climate is immensely complex, depending of a very large number of variables with temperatures (please note that it says temperatureSSSS not temperature) being just a small part of said set of variables.
So, to say that they can adjust the planet’s temp. by 0.2 degrees when they can’t even read it accurately, to manage to dupe governments and international organizations into that lie, that’s the boldest, most outrageous hoax in the history of mankind.
Exiliado: There is no human technology advanced enough to accurately determine the average temperature of the planet within at least 5-10 degrees Celsius.
While Earth’s mean surface temperature can only be estimated within a few tenths of a degree, the surface temperature anomaly can be estimated with significantly higher precision and certainty.
If you can NOT accurately determine the average temperature, you can NOT accurately determine a deviation from said average.
It’s all baloney to further confuse those who don’t understand.
And to claim an accuracy within “tenths of a degree” is precisely the kind of bold falsehood that I mentioned.
No. The weather system is chaotic, and there is no way to get the experimental error of any of the measurements down to what an experimental scientist would consider a reasonable level. The precision of the instruments in use is irrelevant because the error is inherent to the system.
When I was in high school chemistry class, our teacher had us try to take temperature measurements of water being heated, both with and without boiling chips and stirring rods. We learned that, without something to mix the liquid thoroughly, there was no way to get decent temperature readings.
The same is true of the earth. The earth has no equivalent of a stirring rod. Even the calm, even temperature after a hurricane is short-lived.
Valerie: The weather system is chaotic, and there is no way to get the experimental error of any of the measurements down to what an experimental scientist would consider a reasonable level.
There is a calculable range of certainty, whether tenths of a degree or tens of degrees. The fact that the system is chaotic does not mean that we can’t determine an average temperature within a system.
Valerie: We learned that, without something to mix the liquid thoroughly, there was no way to get decent temperature readings.
One way is to use a large number of instruments. We could refine this somewhat by mapping the chaotic flow. In a lab, we could just measure the energy inputs, then we don’t even need a thermometer.
Valerie: San Diego has four temperature ranges: Coast 65-57, Inland, 76-55, Mountains 70-45 and Desert 92-66, all reported in Fahrenheit. What was San Diego’s temperature, today?
With only four instruments, the margin of error would be high. Now increase the number of instruments, and our margin of error will be lower. Provide a geographic map of the area, and the margin of error can be further reduced.
You are FOS. And a liar.
Stupid as well.
And the Surface Stations project showed about 10 years ago what crap so many of the alleged instrument records are. And that’s just in areas where there are instruments. For large parts of the world there are no instruments and the “reported” results are derived from interpolating and applying “corrections” based on the very theory that they’re then called on to support.
I drive home each night about 36 miles. Leaving shortly after midnight. No sun to affect readings anywhere. Takes about 50 minutes. The temperature sensor on the car’s front is used to adjust fuel feed and other things in the engine, and is probably accurate +- 1 degree F. During that drive the measured outside temperature generally varies somewhere between 5 and 10 degrees from the highest I see to the lowest. Only one temperature for the county is recorded during that hour. And it’s sometimes within the range of what I saw, and sometimes isn’t.
There is no way that the surface temperature anomaly can be estimated with significantly higher precision and certainty. It’s not possible to get enough data points.
Exiliado: If you can NOT accurately determine the average temperature, you can NOT accurately determine a deviation from said average.
That is incorrect, and indicates an unfamiliarity with statistics.
Data coverage of the Earth’s surface is incomplete, especially in the polar regions, so determining the average temperature has significant uncertainty, on the order of a few tenths of a degree. However, when considering temperature anomaly, if there are a large number stations most of which show a positive trend and most of the rest show no trend or a slight negative trend, then there is a high probability that the surface is warming.
gospace: There is no way that the surface temperature anomaly can be estimated with significantly higher precision and certainty. It’s not possible to get enough data points.
Same issue.
Consider a thousand stations distributed across a region. If 900 of those stations show a positive trend, 50 show no trend, 50 show a negative trend, what is the probability that the overall positive trend is due to random fluctuations? Turns out that the probability is negligible, and the trend is almost certainly positive. The Monte Carlo method can be used to help determine the exact anomaly and probability range.
” …determining the average temperature has significant uncertainty, on the order of a few tenths of a degree ..,.”
The above statement is wildly, grossly, inaccurate. The margin of error is much, much higher than that. For example, see today’s temperature reports for San Diego, CA, USA:
San Diego has four temperature ranges: Coast 65-57, Inland, 76-55, Mountains 70-45 and Desert 92-66, all reported in Fahrenheit. What was San Diego’s temperature, today?
The value ranged from 45 – 92 degrees. That is, a range of 47 degrees, or plus-or-minus 25 degrees Fahrenheit. The quoted statement above is three orders of magnitude off, and getting a more precise measuring device does not begin to reach the fundamental problem.
Valerie: San Diego has four temperature ranges: Coast 65-57, Inland, 76-55, Mountains 70-45 and Desert 92-66, all reported in Fahrenheit. What was San Diego’s temperature, today?
With only four instruments, the margin of error would be high. Now increase the number of instruments, and our margin of error will be lower. Provide a geographic map of the area, and the margin of error can be further reduced.
68.0°F ± 14.2°F
That’s rich. Especially when you go ahead to state such oxymoron like the use of probabilistic methods to estimate “exact” values. (The Monte Carlo method?!!!! Seriously?)
Then at the same time to admit that the preferred method of the climate wackos is to play whack-a-mole with any and all data points that don’t fit the desired trend, replacing them with randomly generated values. Rich, indeed.
Look, I don’t know who you are, but you can save the mumbo-jumbo for those without a clue. Those like you.
Exiliado: Especially when you go ahead to state such oxymoron like the use of probabilistic methods to estimate “exact” values.
You are correct. The sentence should read “The Monte Carlo method can be used to help determine the {likely} anomaly and probability range.”
Let’s say you have a single observation of 0°C ±0.5°. Assuming random error, if we make the observation 100 times, and take the mean, what is our margin of error?
Exiliado: the preferred method of the climate wackos is to play whack-a-mole with any and all data points that don’t fit the desired trend, replacing them with randomly generated values.
That would not explain why independent statistical analysis of the raw, adjusted data shows the same trend. Or why the satellite record since 1979 supports the same trend.
You said yourself: There are not enough measuring instruments. There will not be enough in the near or far future, so you can’t take accurate measurements. Filling in the wholes in the data sets with “obedient” numbers is FRAUD.
And you cannot assume random errors within ±0.5° when you can have, within minutes in the exact same measuring point, variations up to ±10° or more. It is all lies to force the data to comply. That’s NOT science but political activism.
And NO, not all “independent statistical analysis of the raw data” show the same trend. That’s why there’s debate. And NO, the satellite record does NOT support the same trend. The satellite record shows there has been no warming for 20 years.
Repeating a lie, contrary to what some believe, does not making it true.
And then you have the elephant in the room, the most infantile non-sequitur ever:
Pretending that a single variable (average surface temperature) which can’t even be measured accurately, can be a predictor of catastrophic climate and geological changes.
If we humans ever develop the technology to accurately determine the average surface temperature of the earth, whatever that means, an increase of 1, 2, 3 or even 10 degrees in said value does not necessarily leads to catastrophic melting of the ice caps. To reach said conclusion would be a gross misunderstanding of what the term “average” means. That’s elementary level math.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/28/17152804/climate-change-federal-court-chevron
Why do articles in Legal Insurrection about the same event contradict each other?
One little graph out of place does not negate that there IS Climate Change and that this Climate Change IS caused by increased CO2. What alot of nonsense about nothing!
Right there you have a downright LIE.
A lie remains a lie no matter who says it, no matter how many times.
And if you are not intelligent, or educated enough to understand that a graph showing correlation between 2 variables does NOT prove causation, you are not qualified to debate.
Well ask anyone in Florida by just walking out their front door if there is Climate Change. Highest levels of CO2 in the history of our planet! Lowest ocean levels in Canada’s Artic and massive melting of glaciers clearly state that the climate is changing!! Is it man made? Just look at the huge pollution in China and India and tell me that this has no affect on this planet. Who can deny climate change? So let me try to understand your position: There is NO CLIMATE CHANGE. Okay and the huge amounts of methane gas, CO2 and pollution into our atmosphere has no affect on anything. So Coke up the climate…get those coal firing generators going and puke all that pollution into your lungs and into the atmosphere and this you say is the fact of the world around us today???? Must be the only 2 or 3 people in North America that would ever believe this with a straight face…Please explain how you see that increasing the pollution into our atmosphere and water is a good thing and does not affect anyone including the air we breathe. Please defend that to me.
You are downright stupid and a damn liar. I never said there is no climate change and I never said that pollution is good.
If your intention is to lie, troll, or build elementary school grade straw men, you can give my regards to Patricia and then GFY.
Wow. Tell the truth, Zachriel sent you here to make him look good by comparison, didn’t he? At least he writes in sentences that make sense, are internally consistent, and would make good points if only they were factually accurate.
See the problem with your idiotic and frankly mildly psychotic assertions is that you are talking to a group of people who are old enough to remember the actual history of “climate science”
Like I remember the 70’s and 80’s when psycho tree huggers were screeching that we were heading to a new ice age. That turned out to be Male Bovine Exhaust so then the screed changed to……
Global warming! though the 90’s and the first few years of the 2000’s. Except that turned out to be Male Bovine Exhaust so then the screed changed to……
Climate Change! Which if you take a moment to think about it is the most useless name considering that this morning the sun was shining on my yard and now it’s cloudy and raining, which is….dun dun dun…Climate Change.
When you have to change your argument every 15 to 20 years you are full of crap and your lying. Just like the “97% of scientist” BS. (It was 97% of a small group of scientist that was basically hired by the UN to prove Anthropogenic Climate Change actually existed, through a process that was so bias that 5% of the original scientist refused to have their names attached to the final report. A report btw that has been debunked completely, btw.)
Also, its strikes me as significant that “Climate Scientists” keep getting caught inappropriately tampering with data. Can you say “hockey stick”? I thought you could.
I’m not going to get into a debate regarding measuring methods and margins of error, all I have to do is look at the history of lies and deceit that are the basis of the AGC Religion to realize that it is BS.
Also, most people don’t disagree that the climate is changing, of course it is we don’t live on a static world. We have proof that the climate had changed many times over the history of our planet, simple ice core samples prove that. The difference is that there is no proof that 150 years of industrialization has any impact on those changes, because you can’t take 150 years of data and make a conclusion regarding something that has spanned millions of years, because you are basically saying that a sample of changes that spans less than .0000001% of time spells doom.
It is arrogance of the highest order and it is arrogance based on lies, myths, and frankly bullshit. Oh wait, that’s right cow farts were destroying everything at one point!
If you would like to truly educate yourself, which I know you don’t, then here is some reading you could use.
https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies
No, it didn’t. We still are overdue for an ice age, and the evidence for at least a cooling trend for the next few decades is better than that for anything else.
Yes it did since according them where I live (the deep south USA) should be under ice by now. Remember Milhouse I am not talking about the actual scientists who use actual methods. I am talking about the psycho tree huggers.
They literally set a new precedent identifying that HUMANS cause Climate change!
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/28/17152804/climate-change-federal-court-chevron
All those fools who deny there is climate change over one little disagreement that a wrong graph was used and the presenter was an idiot does not negate the facts!
“that was conceived and written as an explicit refutation to an assertion by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt about climate change.”
So basically they admit that they came up with the conclusion first and then the study, i.e. worthless study since they just found the info they wanted to support their predetermined conclusion. That’s not “science” that’s politics masquerading as real science.
Um, do you even understand the words you’re using?
: This forum/blog is all about Climate Change being a LIE??? Good grief! How much do you have to get paid to write this? There isn’t one child from Kindergarten through high school that would ever defend this. No one on this planet believes that there is NO Climate change and that its just a fact of nature and has nothing to do with how much pollution we are pouring into our oceans and into the atmosphere….Oh I forgot this is Donald Trumps version of the truth…And he appears to have convinced and entire nation that there is no Climate Change and its all just nature….Amazing! Well he is the president and Americans follow him and believe his every word. We have great faith in our Prime Minister who never lies and is truly transparent. I wont argue the point any longer. I know that the American belief is that you believe there is no Climate Change and that nothing man is doing is changing the atmosphere or the water table or anything..its just Mother nature..Why bother with electric cars or solar panels?? I give up.
Of course not, what with the brainwashing they get in government schools wherever it is you live. Once they start reading and thinking for themselves, maybe they’ll get a clue.
Nobody claims that pollution causes global warming — the claim is that CO2 does so, and CO2 is not pollution.
Um, which prime minister is that? Turnbull?! Yeah, he’s transparent all right — you can see right through him! Or did you just use a word without knowing what it means?
Um, what on earth has the water table got to do with the topic?
Indeed. What makes you think there is any reason to bother with them?
Good idea. You should have started there.
Exiliado: There are not enough measuring instruments.
There are thousands of instruments and millions of data-points. Furthermore, we have independent data-sets, such as satellite observations.
Exiliado: And you cannot assume random errors within ±0.5° when you can have, within minutes in the exact same measuring point, variations up to ±10° or more.
It would be very rare to have a 10°C change in minutes. Even then, older observations were generally done at the same time each day so fluctuations tended to even out over large numbers of observations. Modern instruments can sample temperature continuously.
Exiliado: That’s why there’s debate.
There is virtually no scientific debate concerning whether the Earth’s surface is warming or not. There are too many independent measures supporting the same trend.
Exiliado: The satellite record shows there has been no warming for 20 years.
UAHv5.6 TLT: 0.16°C/decade
Exiliado: Pretending that a single variable (average surface temperature) which can’t even be measured accurately, can be a predictor of catastrophic climate and geological changes.
Climate scientists don’t work with mean temperature, but temperature anomaly, which has much lower margins of error.
–
You didn’t answer: Let’s say you have a single observation of 0°C ±0.5°. Assuming random error, if we repeat the observation 100 times, and find a mean value of 0.13°C, what is the margin of error?
You keep repeating the same lies. I keep reminding you: that’s not gonna make them true.
Regarding the question at the end of your comment, that’s IRRELEVANT.
Temperature change CONFIRMED.: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/24/scientists-just-published-an-entire-study-refuting-scott-pruitt-on-climate-change/?utm_term=.4aba5d740e30
This is a YEAR OLD! Sorry Exiliado but YOU are in the dark ages:
Scientists just published an entire study refuting Scott Pruitt on climate change
In a sign of growing tensions between scientists and the Trump administration, researchers published a scientific paper Wednesday that was conceived and written as an explicit refutation to an assertion by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt about climate change.
The study, in the journal Nature Scientific Reports, sets up a direct test of a claim by Pruitt, made in written Senate comments following his confirmation hearing, that “over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming.”
After reviewing temperature trends contained in three satellite data sets going back to 1979, the paper concludes that the data sets show a global warming trend — and that Pruitt was incorrect.
Now for the truth:
But the new study finds that all of the three satellite data sets — kept by Remote Sensing Systems, the Center for Satellite Applications and Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the University of Alabama at Huntsville — show a long-term warming trend in the middle to upper part of the troposphere. After correcting for a cooling-down of the stratosphere (the layer above the troposphere), the paper finds that the trend is roughly 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit per decade for the first two data sets, and 0.26 degrees Fahrenheit per decade for the third.
a.k.a.
“After tampering with the raw data”
You people are dumber than monkeys. My God! It was quite some time since I laughed so hard.
You believed the lie…hey from more of Trump gang. So funny that you believed the earth is not warming…Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
No cooling! More fake news…Where did you get that one from? Certainly not from a sane person who lives in California or Florida! Tell me that source…Gotta laugh about that one too!
No one tampered with raw data…that’s your own conjecture. You just like the attention going against the truth. Here in Alberta the glaciers have melted away to nothing! With the eyes of millions we SEE the global warming changes all around us. How many of us will it take before you see the world around you. Every child in Canada and the US KNOWS that we are going through Global warming and Climate Change BUT YOU! Very sad your story. Very sad that you believe a man know for his lying day in day out…The last time I heard Trump lied at least 5 times a day! Your country is in trouble if you keep believing and pretending that this man has any substance to him.
Oh, that transparent prime minister. Which glaciers? Some glaciers have retreated and some have expanded. That is always the case. Every year some grow, some shrink. Overall, yes, glaciers are shrinking, as they have done for millennia, because the earth is still recovering from the last ice age (and is ovedue for the next one).
Canadian are not laughing with you…we are actually laughing AT YOU! What a sad nation to believe and actually follow the hate and distrust created from your “Leader”. I am very proud to have a Prime Minister that I DO know is telling the trust and is honest and truly does care about everyone in this country..and respects everyone no matter what nationality or religion.
There are so many paid liars. I certainly hope you are just uninformed and not one of those paid by the Oil Companies to simply lie with no conscience.
I am also a Progressive Conservative NOT the Right Wing bunch of liars they call Republicans in the US but a true Progressive Conservative. There are some Canadians trying to emulate the sickness and bigotry created by Trump in the US using a Canadian model and a bunch of hicks who follow them out of their own ignorance but we sure hope that they don’t get into any position of public policy in Canada.
Hey you remind me of that guy from the US who built his own rocket ship so he could see for himself that the earth is FLAT. So funny, he actually flew up into the atmosphere and saw the curved earth and confirmed in “his own mind” that the earth is oblong shaped or just about FLAT! I guess you believe that guy too…Oh well…Gotta get off here…let you join the rest who still think Trump is a hero. Good luck pretending that the earth is not warming…
Yes, please go away, troll.
The global warmening scam sure brings out the commies.
They cannot stand for anyone dissing their religion.
I am certainly not a troll. Also the term “commies” is like from the 50’s! Barry you have lived the entire REAL Climate changes!
Being, like, from the ’50s, makes it wrong?! Hey, most of your crap is from, like, the ’70s.
Serious question, how old are you? You sound like that Hogg idiot from Florida, only a bit younger.
Exiliado: You keep repeating the same lies.
Waving your hands isn’t much of an argument, but we’d be happy to support any claims with which you find problematic. We’ll start with the first claim:
Z: There are thousands of instruments and millions of data-points. Furthermore, we have independent data-sets, such as satellite observations.
Ocean data
Satellite data
Surface data
Exiliado: Regarding the question at the end of your comment, that’s IRRELEVANT.
It’s completely relevant because it has to do with margins of error and numbers of observations. Let’s say you have a single observation of 0°C ±0.5°. Assuming random measurement error, if we repeat the observation 100 times, and the observations yield a mean value of 0.13°C, what is the margin of error?
I see; Wow! You really have captured the precise documentation capture for Ocean data; Satellite data and surface data. This will take some time to figure out what you are really trying to present to me. So you are guestioning the 1/2 degree difference as being an outlayer? There will always be a margin of error. I have a Masters degree in Hospital Administration (mainly statistics) and another in Computer Based Training development so am very aware of statistical significance and false positive and false negatives etc. You are assuming a Mean value..Okay…What is your point? Yes we are human. I will have to get up to speed on what you are really getting at. I am sure you have an important point that I truly wish I knew about….I am with you if you can help me get up to speed. thanks, Robert
RobertLaFleche: You really have captured the precise documentation capture for Ocean data; Satellite data and surface data.
We were responding to Exiliado’s complaint that our claims were not substantiated. We took the first of those claims and provided substantiation, and offered to provide it for the others.
RobertLaFleche: So you are guestioning the 1/2 degree difference as being an outlayer?
If you are referring to “
0°C ±0.5°“, that refers to the random observational error for the instrument being used.RobertLaFleche: There will always be a margin of error.
Sure. The question is the effect of multiple observations on the margin of error.
So there may be a margin of error BUT the trend is for the temperature to be increasing and the levels of CO2 and methane gas etc…pollution that causes greenhouse effect is growing and anyone who thinks that this has nothing to do with the actions of man on the planet is a very sad sad pathetic individual and has an alterior motive that is against all of humanity and is unforgiveable to ignore. In the name of what? Greed makes it right?? Not in Canada it doesnt.
RobertLaFleche: So there may be a margin of error BUT the trend is for the temperature to be increasing and the levels of CO2 and methane gas etc
That is correct.
RobertLaFleche: anyone who thinks that this has nothing to do with the actions of man on the planet is a very sad sad pathetic individual and has an alterior motive that is against all of humanity
In most cases, that is not correct. Most climate skeptics certainly think, albeit wrongly, that they are right.
Got it! Thanks. I am so sorry…we are ON the same wavelength. What do you think about carbon taxes then?
I know that carbon taxes are working in Alberta and creating lots of innovation and honest ways to reduce methane and CO2 into our atmosphere. New political forces in Alberta, Canada want to go back to the past system and keep coal burning plants open and NOT replace them with natural gas (we have huge amounts of natural gas in Alberta). They also want to go back to our old SGER system that allows the oil companies to “pretend” that they are trying to reduce CO2 BUT really countering any taxes by saying that the land they are drilling on (farm land) is not being tilled so no carbon is being released and using this to counter any taxes for polluting. This misinformed man is truly an idiot but seems to be gaining support..especially by oil and gas companies who is is promising to drop their taxes to 10%!!! I am pretty sure that we can remove the carbon tax by using the following technology:
1. ZERO Platform that will take any FLARE STACK and turn it into electricity. Presently used in the US.
2. $0.00 down FREE solar panels on any business or residential home by both Elon Musk corporation (TESLA) and a Canadian Hedge Fund. Presently available in the US and Canada.
3. KVAR capacitor technology to optomize any generator and save an additional 20% to 40% cost of energy.
4. Nanotechnology film to increase the R Factor of any home or business.
What do you think? Would love to know your opinion.
Thanks
What about HHO (Oxyhydrogen)? The French last July 6th created a large ship run on ocean water that is presently travelling the oceans of the world. I think its called The Enchantment. They also created a train run on water also. Do you see this as the FUTURE in the world? Looking forward to your response. Thanks