Climate change sceptics suffer blow as satellite data correction shows 140% faster global warming

[bornagainathiest]

You present flawed arguments, BO.

 

With regard to global warming I have no backyard to clean up. 

If you recall my many reminders to you about it, I do not discuss it and do not hold to a pro or anti position on the issue.  Therefore, I cannot be asked to clean up anything to do with it.  That eliminates three of your four links.  

 

The PhysicsToday link deals with fraud in the process of peer review and it's impact on scientific credibility.

Since it's highly unlikely that your observations will ever be submitted for peer-review it's therefore just as unlikely that the kind of fraud described in the linked article will ever become relevant to this thread.  So, not relevant.  

 

The question of your scientific credibility hasn't entered our dialog either.

This is because you are not a scientist who wants his observations to be given credence.  You have no scientific reputation to lose and no scientific career to jeopardize by committing this kind of fraud.  So again, not relevant. 

 

All you seem to have left is the following contention.

That, because some corruption exists in science, your observations about sea levels must not be challenged by me.  Well, I have two items of news for you.  First, corruption exists in all spheres of human life.  C'est le vie.  Second, all members of Ex-C are equal.  Any member can challenge or question any other.  Nobody is exempt.  Therefore, I am quite within my rights to do so.

.

.

.

Now, let's get back to the first of two matters in hand.

 

Where's your data, BO?

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

1 minute ago, Burnedout said:

 

NO BAA,  take a look at the OP.  This thread is about GW/CC.  Unless the corrupt publishers can come clean and give the true readings, then why should I have to give anything?

 

NO BO.  

 

You and I are not discussing GW/CC.  We have not been discussing GW/CC for weeks.  We have not been discussing it since July 13.  

I clearly defined my reasons for being in this thread (see below) and have reminded you of them several times.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted July 15

Once again I would like to clarify my position, presence and purpose in this thread.

 

MY POSITION

I do not do politics and I am a-political.

I do not do have a position, one way or another, on the issue of global warming. 

I will not comment on or respond to any opinions, quotations, citations, videos, images or stats about global warming.

When it comes to global warming... 

...I will not comment on or respond to any opinions, quotations, citations, videos, images or stats about any governments, any govt agencies or any govt policies.

...I will not comment on or respond to any opinions, quotations, citations, videos, images or stats about any private organizations, their agencies or their policies.

...I will not comment on or respond to any opinions, quotations, citations, videos, images or stats about any conspiracy theories. 

 

MY PRESENCE

My current presence in this thread stems from this post and those that have resulted from it.

Posted Sunday at 05:57 PM by BurnedOut

I have still seen no water rise on the island I mentioned in posts past where Fort Pickens, near Pensacola FL is.  How do I know what is said vs what I have seen is pure bullshit? 

 

MY PURPOSE

My purpose in this thread is solely to challenge BurnedOut on his claimed ability to draw meaningful conclusions about global sea levels from what he observes at just one location.

There is nothing personal, unusual or atypical about how or why I am making this challenge. 

In the Lions Den I've challenged the Stranger and OrdinaryClay about their claims to draw meaningful, across-the-board conclusions, based on what only they themselves observe.

If any other member were making these claims I'd be doing the same or similar.

If this thread were about any other worldwide phenomenon and any other member claimed to be able to draw meaningful conclusions about it only from what they observe from just one location, I'd be challenging them in the same or a similar way.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

But once again you are trying to shift the goalposts and include GW/CC, which is not the topic of discussion between us.

 

Please stay on the topic.

 

Which is how you make your observations. 

 

Where is your data?

[bornagainathiest]

1 minute ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

No, you are trying to veer from the original post and rabbit trailing and I have been indulging you.  You are trying to make an argument in a vaccum. The fact is that the whole subject does not exist in a vaccum.  Why should I post anything when the published sources are turning out to be lies?  You claim to be clarifying but then you persist in trying to rabbit trail. 

 

Then if you won't present your data in this thread, will you join me in a thread dedicated only to how you make your observations, where GW/CC are off limits?

[bornagainathiest]

2 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Why?  It might just prove to be a waste of time and lots of megabytes. 

 

Yes or No?

[bornagainathiest]

I await your decision.

 

Goodbye.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

10 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

Your point might be valid except for one thing.  I am not being paid to publish them.  And when the data being published is a BLATANT LIE ON MY TAXPAYER DIME, which is worse, using what I see and not publishing or PUBLISHING A BLATANT LIE?  

 

Please see examples (assuming it is correct):  

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/31/australia-weather-bureau-caught-tampering-with-climate-numbers/  Australian weather service caught tampering with climate numbers.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html Whistleblowers exposing the scientific community for using phoney climate data to manipulate public policy.

 

http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8057/full/ Phoney peer review affecting scientific credibility. 

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/ Whistleblower exposes NOAA publising phoney numbers.  

 

Those are just a few of MANY.  

 

So...the next time you try to lecture me on my imperfect observations, who is worst, at least I am not lying, or  the people who supposedly have the credentials , and being PAID TAXPAYER DOLLARS to LIE.  For someone who presents himself as a man of science, TRY CLEANING UP YOUR OWN BACKYARD FIRST.  

 

 

 

 

 

Hahaha.... BO you a Christian bro?

 

BAA says "Show me the data", you respond with "Ahhhh hoax, problems, manipulation!"

 

Its like a creationist: Me: "Show me the evidence for creation" Creationist: "Darwin hated god and invented evolution to destroy god......"

 

Um even if that were true.... you still ain't shown me the evidence yo!

 

Scepticism is good for thee, but not for me?

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

Here you go LF, a topo map of the area:  http://www.topozone.com/florida/escambia-fl/city/fort-pickens/  

 

That's not data you have gathered. That's someone else's map that you are promoting. Why would I trust that?

 

PS... you sure you didn't miss the point of my last post?

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

 

I got it and I gave you another funny.

 

Actually, I find it funny that because I am skeptical, it is as if you don't think I should be when I see little to give me reason to trust the published sources. 

 

No no, I think you should be sceptical. I don't think you should be cynical. There's a difference.

 

What is interesting is that you trust your links which are mostly news organisations interpretations and hyping up of events and blowing something into what it isn't. Noooo, media wouldn't do that would they? Surely not?

 

Regarding problems with peer review, scientific journals etc. This is well known, and frustrates many a good scientist. Too many journals are letting in bad papers. Many suggest that more incentive needs to be given to scientists to peer review properly, rather than simply concentrate on new research. The other way to better ensure the quality of papers you are reading is to source research from reputable journals who won't just accept your paper because you pay them a fee.

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

11 hours ago, Burnedout said:

But then when is it not letting in bad papers Vs censoring good papers with a contrary conclusion using good science?

 

Does LF understand what you mean by 'good science', BO?

Right now he may not have much of an idea of what you mean by that.  When he does understand what you mean, then the two of you will have an equivalent understanding of those words.  He can then answer your question as you mean it to be understood, rather than just take a shot at what he thinks you mean.  Equivalence and equivalent understanding help to establish clear lines of communication between parties.

 

And even when the two of you do understand each other in this way, there's still room for the two of you to disagree as to what constitutes 'good science'.

That's because equivalent understanding between people isn't the same as consensus of opinion between them.  Equivalence doesn't mean kowtowing to someone else or yielding up your freedom of choice.  You are still your own person with your own rights, freedoms and opinions.  You just happen to have reached an agreement with someone else about how the two of you want to communicate.  

 

I hope that helps convey the difference between equivalent understanding and consensus of opinion. 

 

Anyway, imho it would help if you and LF can come to an equivalent understanding of what 'good science' is.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[LogicalFallacy]

6 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Does LF understand what you mean by 'good science', BO?

Right now he may not have much of an idea of what you mean by that.  When he does understand what you mean, then the two of you will have an equivalent understanding of those words.  He can then answer your question as you mean it to be understood, rather than just take a shot at what he thinks you mean.  Equivalence and equivalent understanding help to establish clear lines of communication between parties.

 

I was actually going to ask for clarification of what BO meant - you beat me to it.

 

What does 'good science' mean?

 

To clarify when I'm talking about bad papers, I am not talking about the result i.e. A concludes x, but B concludes y. It's the quality of the method I am talking about. I have listened to potholer54 ( A science journalist who operates a youtube education channel in his spare time https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54 ) and he distinguishes between journals who let in completely fake papers (They actually set up a test and sent in fake papers) and those who ensure that the scientific methods they use are rigorous and can withstand scrutiny. He also talks about scientists who apply proper scientific method and those who don't.

 

If I dive into the political side (BAA can help me handle the scientific method side) the reason why people who understand science accept the data adjustments of NOAA, but don't accept the conclusions of the likes of Dr Christy is that their methods do not withstand scientific scrutiny. Dr Christy and co aren't being censored, their work just doesn't met the bar. They could publish in a pay to publish journal, but then less notice would be take of their work for afore mentioned reasons.

 

To be honest, I'm struggling to see the difference between people claiming a huge cover up and censoring of papers to promote global warming, and the Christian who says that evolution was just made up to destroy god and they have falsified all the fossils etc. In both cases instead of presenting actual verifiable evidence to back up their position they resort to essentially calling the position they don't agree with a "conspiracy".

 

[bornagainathiest]

My thanks to LF for his confidence in me.

I'm not a scientist, I'm a gardener.  My understanding of the scientific method is not the result of training and/or a career choice.  It's just what I've read about it.  So, if I err, please correct me.

 

Now, of course I fully accept the validity of your personal experiences, BO.

That's a given.  But at this point I feel I must inform you and LF about a pattern I think I see in this thread.   This...

 

He takes his beliefs as a given and then proceeds to find 'evidence' for them by selecting that which appears to support them and de-selecting that which doesn't.  So he begins with the conclusion he wants, rather than letting the evidence lead him wherever it will and then accepting that evidence-driven outcome.  This, of course, reverses the proper order in which open minded investigation is done.  You begin with a question and then see if you can find an answer to it.  You do not begin with a conclusion and then seek out only that which supports it.

 

...is something I wrote about the Christian End3 in the Moral Law thread that's running right now in the Lion's Den.

 

Sadly, his approach is all to symptomatic of the way many Christians believe by things faith, don't think skeptically and deny any evidence that contradicts their faith.

A recurring theme of debate (not just here in Ex-C, but in other forums) between Christians and Atheists is the age of the universe.  Fundamentalist Christians use scripture as their guide to this and so they believe by faith that the universe is about 6,000 years old and not 13,720,000,000 years old, which is what the evidence tells us.  I've debated some of these Christians and used scientific data to support my position.  Some Christians will consider the data, but will usually opt to disbelieve it on the grounds that they trust the word of God more than the word of men.  But the most entrenched Christians go further and reject the data out of hand, refusing to even believe that it was observed, gathered and collated in a fair and even-handed way.  (The recently-visiting Christian, Stranger, falls into this category.)

 

Why do they do this?  

Imho it's because they are so wedded to their beliefs that they cannot think skeptically.  Their beliefs cause them to go beyond skepticism, into a kind of selective cynicism.  While they can readily accept harmless, everyday topics and issues that don't challenge their deeply-held beliefs, the instant a challenge is detected, their mental defense mechanisms are activated and they swing into cynical thinking.  Anything which challenges or which might challenge is automatically disbelieved - sometimes before they've even seen the data.  The three main reasons these Christians give for their stonewall disbelief is that scripture tells them that unbelievers are spiritually blind or that they are being deceived by Satan or that these unbelieving scientists are actually agents of Satan who are actively trying to mislead Christians with their lies about God's creation.

 

These true believers do what End3 does and begin, not from a neutral position of open-minded skepticism, but from a position of belief-based cynicism to anything other than their cherished beliefs.  Their beliefs are true and all else is lies.  This is, of course, a self-reinforcing mind set.  One from which there can be no easy escape.  Their beliefs tell them not to be neutral, not to be open-minded and not to be skeptical.  Their belief causes them to be cynical and it reinforces their cynicism.  Any and all attempts to get them to neutrally and skeptically consider evidence that challenges their beliefs is interpreted as an attack on those beliefs.  And this is exactly the brick wall I've encountered when debating these die-hard religious cynics.  

 

But this unbreakable wall of cynicism isn't limited to ultra-fundamentalist Christians.

Nor is it even limited to religious people.  ANY deeply-held belief (religious, political, philosophical, etc.) has the potential to cause someone to become such a cynic or to reinforce their latent cynicism.   Conspiracy theorists of all shades and types are prominent examples of belief-based cynicism.  Moon Hoax conspiracy theorists, JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, UFO conspiracy theorists, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, etc., etc.  The same mind set would seem to be at work here too.

 

To see this pattern, all one has to do is to keep the narrative, but swap the identities of the players.

Some Christians believe that scientists are Satan's agents and so they automatically disbelieve any science that contradicts their true, Bible-based beliefs.

Some Moon Hoaxers believe that NASA is an agent of the New World Order and so they automatically disbelieve any NASA evidence for the Apollo Moon landings.

Some UFO theorists believe that all Main Stream Media is controlled by the Men In Black and so they automatically disbelieve anything the MSM says about UFOs.

Some JFK theorists believe that the Fed govt is involved in some kind of cover up and so they automatically disbelieve any evidence to the contrary.

Some (insert player) believe that the (insert player) is controlling/covering up/falsifying something (insert whatever) and so they automatically disbelieve anything that challenges their true beliefs.

Just mix the different ingredients of the cocktail up, shake a little, then pour and serve... the pattern stays pretty much the same.

 

And as far as I can see, this pattern is playing itself out here in Ex-C.

When it comes to certain things, End3 could be swapped for BO and the pattern (not the content) of their posts would stay pretty much the same.  

Both players seem to begin from a position of deeply-held personal belief.

Both players seem to have problems with adopting a neutral, open-minded and skeptical mind set.

Both players seem to have a latent distrust of certain authorities and organizations.

Both players seem to have a poorly-developed understanding of what constitutes good practice in data gathering. 

Both players seem to practice confirmation bias by selecting evidence that confirms their beliefs and de-selecting evidence that doesn't.

Both players seem to place too much emphasis on the subjective and too little on the objective.

Both players seem to over-rely on their personal experiences, taking their limited, subjective and highly specific data as a reliable indicator of widespread and global generalities and trends.

 

There are probably other similarities.

But, please note that similarity, connection and correlation do not equal causation.  All I am doing in this post is describing a pattern that I see.   It may not be true pattern.  Even if other members see this pattern too, that might not be meaningful either.  All that would mean is that there is a consensus of opinion between these members - and consensus does not equal fact.  

 

Please also note I'm not immune to the problems of confirmation bias, selection effects, personal belief and everything else I've listed.  I'm not better than anyone else.  Just different.  

 

Ok, I've said my piece about the pattern I see.

I've put the information out there.  Quite what other will make of it, I don't know.  Nor do I offer any solutions to the problems that might be associated with the pattern I see.  For now, all I'm doing is informing others that I observe it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

Regardless of BO's personal approaches or biases or political opinions, I'd bet that he's on the right side of this debate nonetheless. And as it was said before, it's one of those things that time will tell. BTW, I'm all about getting away from fossil fuel. Regardless of whether or not man made global warming is real, I'd personally like to see fossil fuel usage phased out altogether. It's crude and it does shit up the place. Maybe global warming is a big overstep, but it's certainly nasty and does pollute the environment in various ways. I wouldn't want any one to think that I have some agenda to bolster fossil fuel usage when I do not. This is simply about calling bullshit where bullshit lies, that's it. 

[bornagainathiest]

9 hours ago, Burnedout said:

BAA,

 

There is also another thing about me.  I am just a wee bit ornery.  Orneriness is a constant with me and has been my whole life.  I used to drive my teachers in school crazy when I was growing up .  It does not mean I am intending to be malicious, but rather just fun loving.  It is a part of the culture I grew up in.  I have many family members in Appalacia, shall we say redneck, hillbilly, etc.  I was the first person in my family to graduate with a university degree, my father and mother never did, and my grandparents never went to high school.  It is part of the culture that is the way I interacted in an informal way the way I do.  

 

Nothing wrong with ornery, BO.

 

If that's who you are and how you are, then don't go changing to try to please me.  Or anyone else.  

 

According to my pops, before our folks settled where we are now they came from generations of hoosiers and long before that from good ole French France.

 

Oh and when it comes to ornery, you should have been a fly on the wall in my school principal's office on the many occasions I ended up there, spray can confiscated (again!) and smirking disrespectfully at him like a gremlin!  

 

(**** me!  That was forty years ago!)

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

6 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Oh and when it comes to ornery, you should have been a fly on the wall in my school principal's office on the many occasions I ended up there, spray can confiscated (again!) and smirking disrespectfully at him like a gremlin!  

 

(**** me!  That was forty years ago!)

 

 

 

BAA.... you... with a spray can? You seem such an orderly respectful fellow... how did a demon child brandishing spray cans turn into such a logical rational adult?  

 

@Burnedout

"There is also another thing about me.  I am just a wee bit ornery. " Like BAA said, nothing wrong with that. We all have our characters - BAA is very logical and polite. I like to think I'm logical, but I will also be harsh and less polite if I feel it justifies hammering home a point.

 

@Joshpantera

Time will be the big equalizer for all of us... all of humanity actually.

 

Which part of the debate do you think BO is on the right side of? At the moment we are debating validity of measuring data. This is related to, but not the same as debating whether GW is happening, or whether man-made CO2 is a major contributor.

[bornagainathiest]

15 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

BAA.... you... with a spray can? You seem such an orderly respectful fellow... how did a demon child brandishing spray cans turn into such a logical rational adult?  

 

I'm still trying to figure that out, LF.   

 

Quote

 

@Burnedout

"There is also another thing about me.  I am just a wee bit ornery. " Like BAA said, nothing wrong with that. We all have our characters - BAA is very logical and polite. I like to think I'm logical, but I will also be harsh and less polite if I feel it justifies hammering home a point.

 

@Joshpantera

Time will be the big equalizer for all of us... all of humanity actually.

 

Which part of the debate do you think BO is on the right side of? At the moment we are debating validity of measuring data. This is related to, but not the same as debating whether GW is happening, or whether man-made CO2 is a major contributor.

 

[Joshpantera]

On 8/4/2017 at 11:49 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

BAA.... you... with a spray can? You seem such an orderly respectful fellow... how did a demon child brandishing spray cans turn into such a logical rational adult?  

 

@Burnedout

"There is also another thing about me.  I am just a wee bit ornery. " Like BAA said, nothing wrong with that. We all have our characters - BAA is very logical and polite. I like to think I'm logical, but I will also be harsh and less polite if I feel it justifies hammering home a point.

 

@Joshpantera

Time will be the big equalizer for all of us... all of humanity actually.

 

Which part of the debate do you think BO is on the right side of? At the moment we are debating validity of measuring data. This is related to, but not the same as debating whether GW is happening, or whether man-made CO2 is a major contributor.

 

The side that says that the entire GW movement, that changed itself to CC, is way off all the way around. Just as described in the videos that have been posted and the articles outlining the spurious claims and underlying political agenda's that drive the spurious claims. Such as the title of the opening post, which, turns out to be completely inaccurate because no such blow has been dealt. In the video that I posted the issue of CO2 is dealt with. It turns out that it wasn't the major contributing factor that they thought it was originally. And yet it still gets recited like the lords prayer among left bent scientists who are by all means acting as pseudo scientists with what they're doing. I side with the scientists who are trying to clean up political corruption in science. I don't feel that political agenda's have any place in real science. 

 

That means both phasing out the right bent scientists pushing for creationism and ID, as well as the left bent scientists pushing for spurious CC agenda's all of which turn out to be more pseudo scientific than scientific, per the analysis of their thought processes and methodologies. 

 

The video and articles I've posted deal squarely with an analysis of methodology behind the spurious and sensational claims.