Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

[CID1990]

George Orwell essay on the definition of fascism written back around WWII which is as applicable today as it was then.

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_ ... jCpax-LQNg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Orwell was taken from a larger post by a blogger I follow. This is a bit ramble-y but there’s a few excellent parts in there, and an interesting take on the Chinese “100 years of humiliation” followed by a funny quip about MAGA.

http://www.letterstohannah.net/2019/09/ ... l?m=1#more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[89Hen]

It's been on the news lately about a series of giant shark sightings off of some of our area beaches. Videos and pictures surfaced of a huge dorsal fin sticking out of the water very close to shore. It turns out the whole thing was a hoax. Some asshole with scuba gear and a plastic fin attached to his back has been f-ing with people.

[kalm]

It's been on the news lately about a series of giant shark sightings off of some of our area beaches. Videos and pictures surfaced of a huge dorsal fin sticking out of the water very close to shore. It turns out the whole thing was a hoax. Some asshole with scuba gear and a plastic fin attached to his back has been f-ing with people.

My very first thought.

[SeattleGriz]

We'll see how long it takes the climate science field to eat one of their own for pointing out what anyone who understands falsifiability knows, climate models are too immature to be used for predictions.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed- ... the-beans/

[Col Hogan]

We'll see how long it takes the climate science field to eat one of their own for pointing out what anyone who understands falsifiability knows, climate models are too immature to be used for predictions.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed- ... the-beans/

The temperature forecasting models trying to deal with the intractable complexities of the climate are no better than “toys” or “Mickey Mouse mockeries” of the real world, he says. This is not actually a radical idea. The IPCC in its third report (2001) conceded (emphasis added),

In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2. )]

Somehow that official warning was deep-sixed by the alarmists. Now Nakamura has found it again, further accusing the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public,” he writes.

No Longer Have Any Scientific Value...that’s pretty clear...

[SeattleGriz]

We'll see how long it takes the climate science field to eat one of their own for pointing out what anyone who understands falsifiability knows, climate models are too immature to be used for predictions.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed- ... the-beans/

The temperature forecasting models trying to deal with the intractable complexities of the climate are no better than “toys” or “Mickey Mouse mockeries” of the real world, he says. This is not actually a radical idea. The IPCC in its third report (2001) conceded (emphasis added),

In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2. )]

Somehow that official warning was deep-sixed by the alarmists. Now Nakamura has found it again, further accusing the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public,” he writes.

No Longer Have Any Scientific Value...that’s pretty clear...

Couple weeks ago i was pointing out how NOAA has a certain group of weather stations that were placed specifically where they would not be affected by pavement or other things that could influence the readings. They call it their premiere network for detecting climate change. The readings are not used for NOAAs monthly weather summary. Now why wouldn't you use the premiere network?

I was shocked by the lack of desire for good data on this board. They believe what they are told.

[AZGrizFan]

No Longer Have Any Scientific Value...that’s pretty clear...

Couple weeks ago i was pointing out how NOAA has a certain group of weather stations that were placed specifically where they would not be affected by pavement or other things that could influence the readings. They call it their premiere network for detecting climate change. The readings are not used for NOAAs monthly weather summary. Now why wouldn't you use the premiere network?

I was shocked by the lack of desire for good data on this board. They believe what they are told.

Oh yeah. I’m shocked too. Just shocked, I say.

[SeattleGriz]

Couple weeks ago i was pointing out how NOAA has a certain group of weather stations that were placed specifically where they would not be affected by pavement or other things that could influence the readings. They call it their premiere network for detecting climate change. The readings are not used for NOAAs monthly weather summary. Now why wouldn't you use the premiere network?

I was shocked by the lack of desire for good data on this board. They believe what they are told.

Oh yeah. I’m shocked too. Just shocked, I say.

If you say you are pro science, wouldn't you expect one to care about methodology? Nope. Just tell me what to say.

[kalm]

No Longer Have Any Scientific Value...that’s pretty clear...

Couple weeks ago i was pointing out how NOAA has a certain group of weather stations that were placed specifically where they would not be affected by pavement or other things that could influence the readings. They call it their premiere network for detecting climate change. The readings are not used for NOAAs monthly weather summary. Now why wouldn't you use the premiere network?

I was shocked by the lack of desire for good data on this board. They believe what they are told.

Missed it. Source?

[SeattleGriz]

Couple weeks ago i was pointing out how NOAA has a certain group of weather stations that were placed specifically where they would not be affected by pavement or other things that could influence the readings. They call it their premiere network for detecting climate change. The readings are not used for NOAAs monthly weather summary. Now why wouldn't you use the premiere network?

I was shocked by the lack of desire for good data on this board. They believe what they are told.

Missed it. Source?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/30/ ... une-right/

[kalm]

Missed it. Source?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/30/ ... une-right/

Funded by the Heartland Institute.

Find credible sources worth reading.

[SeattleGriz]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/30/ ... une-right/

Funded by the Heartland Institute.

Find credible sources worth reading.

Facts are facts. Just because it doesn't come from your personal echo chamber doesn't mean they aren't true.

I just got done posting one of the top climate modelers has come forward saying the models use incomplete data and then post how NOAA uses a substandard source, and your reply is, " Waah I don't like it".

[kalm]

Funded by the Heartland Institute.

Find credible sources worth reading.

Facts are facts. Just because it doesn't come from your personal echo chamber doesn't mean they aren't true.

I just got done posting one of the top climate modelers has come forward saying the models use incomplete data and then post how NOAA uses a substandard source, and your reply is, " Waah I don't like it".

Like I’ve said before. Quote one, just one, case of of peer-reviewed evidence from an organization that is NOT easily connected to the fossil fuel industry. “Whatsupwiththat is one of the worst.

Linear/consensus thinking can be a problem. No doubt. I’d truly love to see 97% of climate scientists wrong about this. 97% of scientists have been wrong before.

[SeattleGriz]

Facts are facts. Just because it doesn't come from your personal echo chamber doesn't mean they aren't true.

I just got done posting one of the top climate modelers has come forward saying the models use incomplete data and then post how NOAA uses a substandard source, and your reply is, " Waah I don't like it".

Like I’ve said before. Quote one, just one, case of of peer-reviewed evidence from an organization that is NOT easily connected to the fossil fuel industry. “Whatsupwiththat is one of the worst.

Linear/consensus thinking can be a problem. No doubt. I’d truly love to see 97% of climate scientists wrong about this. 97% of scientists have been wrong before.

The article in no way tried to debunk any theories. It pointed out the fact that NOAA doesn't even use their premiere data set for climate change data.

It pointed out the flaw in methodology. You sound like Cleets defending Michael Mann. You didn't even address the actual topic being discussed.

[kalm]

Like I’ve said before. Quote one, just one, case of of peer-reviewed evidence from an organization that is NOT easily connected to the fossil fuel industry. “Whatsupwiththat is one of the worst.

Linear/consensus thinking can be a problem. No doubt. I’d truly love to see 97% of climate scientists wrong about this. 97% of scientists have been wrong before.

The article in no way tried to debunk any theories. It pointed out the fact that NOAA doesn't even use their premiere data set for climate change data.

It pointed out the flaw in methodology. You sound like Cleets defending Michael Mann. You didn't even address the actual topic being discussed.

I've read a half dozen or whatupwiththat articles. Nothing they report is trustworthy. Get that shyte out of here and go find something legit.

[kalm]

Like I’ve said before. Quote one, just one, case of of peer-reviewed evidence from an organization that is NOT easily connected to the fossil fuel industry. “Whatsupwiththat is one of the worst.

Linear/consensus thinking can be a problem. No doubt. I’d truly love to see 97% of climate scientists wrong about this. 97% of scientists have been wrong before.

The article in no way tried to debunk any theories. It pointed out the fact that NOAA doesn't even use their premiere data set for climate change data.

It pointed out the flaw in methodology. You sound like Cleets defending Michael Mann. You didn't even address the actual topic being discussed.

BTW, the hockey stick is still holding strong despite a coordinated effort to debunk it for ideological reasons.

[SeattleGriz]

The article in no way tried to debunk any theories. It pointed out the fact that NOAA doesn't even use their premiere data set for climate change data.

It pointed out the flaw in methodology. You sound like Cleets defending Michael Mann. You didn't even address the actual topic being discussed.

BTW, the hockey stick is still holding strong despite a coordinated effort to debunk it for ideological reasons.

Sure it is. He won't release his methodology for people to determine how he produced it.

That's not how science works. You need to be open to all dissenting views. If you prove to be right, your theory just became more robust. If not, you go back to the drawing board.

[kalm]

BTW, the hockey stick is still holding strong despite a coordinated effort to debunk it for ideological reasons.

Sure it is. He won't release his methodology for people to determine how he produced it.

That's not how science works. You need to be open to all dissenting views. If you prove to be right, your theory just became more robust. If not, you go back to the drawing board.

Pretty sure he showed his work...decades ago. But keep swinging!

[SeattleGriz]

Sure it is. He won't release his methodology for people to determine how he produced it.

That's not how science works. You need to be open to all dissenting views. If you prove to be right, your theory just became more robust. If not, you go back to the drawing board.

Pretty sure he showed his work...decades ago. But keep swinging!

Then why did he just lose his case in Canada for not producing his work.

[Chizzang]

The article in no way tried to debunk any theories. It pointed out the fact that NOAA doesn't even use their premiere data set for climate change data.

It pointed out the flaw in methodology. You sound like Cleets defending Michael Mann. You didn't even address the actual topic being discussed.

I've read a half dozen or whatupwiththat articles. Nothing they report is trustworthy. Get that shyte out of here and go find something legit.

You arguing with a guy that thinks bronze age goat herders hold the key to eternal life
Yes the very same goat herders (they're still there)

[SeattleGriz]

I've read a half dozen or whatupwiththat articles. Nothing they report is trustworthy. Get that shyte out of here and go find something legit.

You arguing with a guy that thinks bronze age goat herders hold the key to eternal life
Yes the very same goat herders (they're still there)

Ad hominem attacks. The go to move for those who blindly follow the climate change religion. Just keep believing what you are told.

Notice he hasn't replied back on his being sure Mann produced his methodology.

[Chizzang]

You arguing with a guy that thinks bronze age goat herders hold the key to eternal life
Yes the very same goat herders (they're still there)

Ad hominem attacks. The go to move for those who blindly follow the climate change religion. Just keep believing what you are told.

Notice he hasn't replied back on his being sure Mann produced his methodology.

First: I don't care about Climate - I'll be dead too soon to care

However:
Establishing the use and practice of credible sources is key...
If you're going to quote a blog owned by Royal Dutch Shell as a credible source
it's similar to quoting the bible as a credible source on science

You hurt your own credibility
you already proved you don't know how to read the temperature charts established NOAA
and you quoted NOAA as a source

and now you have switched to something you do understand
a blog written by shills

[Col Hogan]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/30/ ... une-right/

Funded by the Heartland Institute.

Find credible sources worth reading.

Did you read the imbedded link to the Japanese scientists personal translation of his paper...?

[kalm]

You arguing with a guy that thinks bronze age goat herders hold the key to eternal life
Yes the very same goat herders (they're still there)

Ad hominem attacks. The go to move for those who blindly follow the climate change religion. Just keep believing what you are told.

Notice he hasn't replied back on his being sure Mann produced his methodology.

Mann lost a libel suit. Did the court also refute Mann's research?