[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BTW, Baghdad Beave, got anything to say about the actual subject of this thread?

Doubt it, but thought I'd check.

I already did, re-read this thread. What does Baghdad have to do with this thread though?

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Another meaningless smear attempt.

I'm sorry, I thought that's what we were doing. You smear and I counter-smear. You show us your movie smearing climate skeptics and I show you a smeary review from the Australian science writer, blogger, and speaker, Jo-Anne Nova.

Was that not correct? Were we just showing trailers to climate movies then?

Very well. Here's one:

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BTW, Baghdad Beave, got anything to say about the actual subject of this thread?

Doubt it, but thought I'd check.

I already did, re-read this thread.

You mean when you smeared Joseph D'aleo with the link to the smear merchants at Desmog blog? Yeah...uh...no. Not on subject. But thanks for playing.

$1:

What does Baghdad have to do with this thread though?

Seriously, BB? You don't remember the good ol' days?

[DrCaleb]

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

So the Earth isn't warming?

Not to the degree that's been represented, no.

These people point out that past temperatures were adjusted downward and temps after the 1960's were adjusted upward and then cooling periods were 'normalized.

The impact of all of this was to erase typical warming and cooling cycles and then to make the past look cooler than it was...the result being a false impression that the world has been steadily and dramatically warming.

Be sure to read the research paper and not just the news article. The paper gets into the details of how the numbers were compiled and adjusted.

I skimmed through it. No proof of peer review as stated in the article. Many of their sources are questionable, either linking to climate denying websites/people or just citing themselves. But I haven't read anything when they looked at the data provided by legit sources, just looked at the sources they used. Work gets in the way.

Odd, I can't find it in any science journal either.

But I can google the names of the people who authored the "study". Good for a chuckle or two.

I think this is in the wrong forum, it isn't regarding "Science and Technology", but "Religion".

[Tricks]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Odd, I can't find it in any science journal either.

But I can google the names of the people who authored the "study". Good for a chuckle or two.

I think this is in the wrong forum, it isn't regarding "Science and Technology", but "Religion".

Yeah I checked for any sort of journal carrying it and couldn't either. The authors all have a history of this, which speaks to pretty considerable bias. Though the other side could argue the same thing, that supports of climate change have a history of supporting it and therefore they have bias too.

[DrCaleb]

Tricks Tricks:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Odd, I can't find it in any science journal either.

But I can google the names of the people who authored the "study". Good for a chuckle or two.

I think this is in the wrong forum, it isn't regarding "Science and Technology", but "Religion".

Yeah I checked for any sort of journal carrying it and couldn't either. The authors all have a history of this, which speaks to pretty considerable bias. Though the other side could argue the same thing, that supports of climate change have a history of supporting it and therefore they have bias too.

The difference is many journals also do lengthy and detailed peer review before they are published. That changes them from a biased to unbiased source. Science is only science if it's falsifiable, which is a test this "study" has not been subjected to.

[BartSimpson]

The endless appeals to authority do not change the fact that the 'catastrophic' warming trend only exists in ginned up spreadsheets.

[N_Fiddledog]

I believe I can show you guys the whole story on the peer-review of this study, but it's in the land Doc dare not go, so we're gonna lose him.

The comments at the skeptic site, Watts Up With That are different than the ones at the warmist sites. At Watts both sides are permitted to debate. There is only enough censorship to prevent complete Chaos.

If you go here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/ ... mate-data/

they discussed this study 5 days ago. If you search the comments for the word "Peer" review you'll discover peer review was a big topic for debate. I'll give you a spoiler. Doc and Trick's side appears to have won this one. My general impression is the guys from the warmist side pretty much call it when they label the review of that study "Pal Review."

Bart and my side (the good guy's side ) seem to be reduced to arguing the faults of peer review in general and it's specific failings concerning the climate arena.

[N_Fiddledog]

BTW you guys who have been running the names of the study authors through your Desmogblog or wherever you go to be comforted by smears, have you tried this one? Dr. Alan Carlin.

Isn't he the guy from NOAA who we first heard about when he challenged his boss's "study" as junk science? You know, the one where the NOAA administrator Thom Karl, organized a group to rewrite the climate data to say there was no pause in warming. Previous to the rewrite it said no statistically significant warming for what is now 20 years.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The endless appeals to authority do not change the fact that the 'catastrophic' warming trend only exists in ginned up spreadsheets.

Peer review is not an appeal to authority. It's the opposite; verifying the data supports the conclusions regardless of human opinion.

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh and Bart, the other two won't be interested in this, but have you noticed this one below in the news lately?

http://principia-scientific.org/breakin ... tick-mann/

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/glob ... o-silence/

Basically, you know how Michael Mann, the hockey stick guy, likes to use his lawfare intimidation tactics to keep people from being critical of his junk science?

Well...he's hit a roadblock...in Canada.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Peer review is not an appeal to authority.

Okay, then asking my Marine Corps peers to objectively assess my opinions of Muslims would be fair, right?

My point is that a 'peer review' by people who hold the exact same opinions as I do isn't much of a review, is it?

Myself I look at the raw data as presented (for instance) on page 11 of the report and I see five consecutive revisions of the GISS data over a 25 year period where all of the data is consistently 'adjusted' upward. Each successive revision of the same data comes up with a warmer conclusion.

That's either a reflection of a bias in favor of warming or else GISS is calling their past research incompetent.

In every example given the bias in the adjustments ALWAYS favors warming. It's simply improbable that all of the adjustments would favor a warmer result unless there's a bias favoring that result.

[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh and Bart, the other two won't be interested in this, but have you noticed this one below in the news lately?

http://principia-scientific.org/breakin ... tick-mann/

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/glob ... o-silence/

Basically, you know how Michael Mann, the hockey stick guy, likes to use his lawfare intimidation tactics to keep people from being critical of his junk science?

Well...he's hit a roadblock...in Canada.

Oh, yeah. If Michael Mann won't defend his own data in court IN A LAWSUIT HE STARTED then it's indefensible.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Another meaningless smear attempt.

I'm sorry, I thought that's what we were doing. You smear and I counter-smear. You show us your movie smearing climate skeptics and I show you a smeary review from the Australian science writer, blogger, and speaker, Jo-Anne Nova.

Was that not correct? Were we just showing trailers to climate movies then?

Very well. Here's one:

Unsurprisingly, you don't understand the difference between exposing someone's false credentials and financial interests from "smear".

Just about every denier who claims to do research that you guys put up here takes money from polluters. That's not a "smear". Most of your deniers "research" is not peer-reviewed and/or are not even recognizedin the field they are researching. That's not a "smear". If it's relevant it's not a smear.

The stuff you posted is smear because it's misleading or irrelevant. For example DeSmog is just a clearinghouse anf doesn't claim to do research or so pointing out that they're not scientists is irrelevant. Unlike your frauds, they're not claiming to be scientists.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Peer review is not an appeal to authority.

Okay, then asking my Marine Corps peers to objectively assess my opinions of Muslims would be fair, right?

You are asking for an opinion of an opinion there from a biased source. That is psychology, not science. If you were to ask him to recount your inventory of an ammo locker when you know he wants your result to be wrong, that is a "peer review". And when he comes back with the same number as you, then everyone can believe your results.

That's how a 'peer review' is done.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

My point is that a 'peer review' by people who hold the exact same opinions as I do isn't much of a review, is it?

Which is why a peer review is conducted by people who scrutinize every aspect of the report. People who want the report to be wrong and in such a way as to eliminate opinion from the results.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Myself I look at the raw data as presented (for instance) on page 11 of the report and I see five consecutive revisions of the GISS data over a 25 year period where all of the data is consistently 'adjusted' upward. Each successive revision of the same data comes up with a warmer conclusion.

That's either a reflection of a bias in favor of warming or else GISS is calling their past research incompetent.

And how do you have enough experience to know what you are looking at? Have you ever designed a satellite? Have you ever designed the electronics required to send impulses to the earth, measure them and interpreted them? Do you know how the microwave radiation relates to the surface temperature, as the instrument records it? Do you know how different instruments on different satellites in different orbits at different heights at different times of the day all relate to surface temperature?

Why do you think you know how those signals should represent temperature, and what trend they represent? I'm not claiming to either, but this is why peer review exists, so that people not involved in the study but who know what they are doing look at a study and evaluate it objectively. Then the rest of us can be confident the study accurately reflects reality.

This study does none of those things, and is written by people known to write flawed and biased studies. It's pretty safe to say this study is also flawed, inaccurate and biased. It adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

In every example given the bias in the adjustments ALWAYS favors warming. It's simply improbable that all of the adjustments would favor a warmer result unless there's a bias favoring that result.

Or unless the satellite orbit decays and the readings were skewed that way because of it. Unless you understand all the nuances of using a satellite to measure surface temperatures, I'm going to remain skeptical of your opinion that such results are improbable.

And, once again, I point you to the reason such data adjustments are needed:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01 ... ture-data/

And accurate:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07 ... e-records/