Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

[TDPerk]

http://www.climatedepot.com/

[TDPerk]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

[TDPerk]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-w ... r-dummies/

[TDPerk]

As had been mentioned before, science is cutthroat. If you don't have all your bases covered, don't expect to be taken seriously.

You can be lionized if a critical mass of scientists agree with you. Then the flaws in your work are ignored, flaws in contrary work magnified, and skepticism of your idea marginalized.

How long did it take for Milliken's Oil Drop error to be acknowledged? Most people--and scientists are also just such people--go with the flow, don't rock the boat, and get on the gravy train.

The whole of the AGW edifice is that sociological effect writ larger, with the added piquancy of a few genuine bad actors.

A great many funerals must occur, before science in this field can possibly advance to become generally competent and accurate...

...Possibly also trials for attempted crimes against humanity. And to the effect the cost of carbon usage restriction can be shown to cause privation and early death, the crimes are accomplished, not merely attempted.

[happyjack27]

If any one hasn't caught on yet, my responses fit a very predictable pattern:

* they have already taken x into account, here's x:...

But you don't provide evidence x was taken into account, and as with the NOAA UHI related link I've provided, they haven't taken it into account.

Are you frickin' blind??!? Try the frickin' google!: https://www.google.com/search?q=factors ... 80&bih=935

you are welcome to provide empirical evidence to support your claim.

Let these two patterns be recognized and help guide discussion towards a more productive end.

That empirical evidence is found in many places, among others in the NOAA UHI related link I reference.

they have already taken x into account, here's x: http://grist.org/article/warming-is-due ... nd-effect/

You are making the extraordinary claim, you prove it.

you are the one making the extraordinary claim: a massive world wide conspiracy, and all the data on climate, specifically, and nothing else, is fraudulent. cell phones, tv's, radio, etc., on the other hand, is all just fine.

you have not provided any evidence to support your insanely ridiculous claim.

i'm curious, is it just climatology that's a massive worldwide conspiracy? or is it gravity, too? western medicine? how about agriculture? there is just as much evidence that these are massive worldwide conspiracies. why can't we see the original data? we do they keep suppressing contrary data? why don't they ever publish any evidence? we haven't they taken x into account?

[NotAPhysicist]

So my brief round up of this.

climatedepot.com - is apparently funded by the CCT a non-profit that is itself significantly (possibly principally) funded by Exxon-mobile. I'm sure that's just a coincidence. To be honest I couldn't get past the shouty banners, but nothing presented itself as very helpful. Maybe when I have more time.

wattsupwiththat.com - looks like it might be slightly more sensible. The site has actually been helpful in one instance by spotting a data error (hey, I thought data wasn't meant to be publicly available?). Once corrected (I thought any disagreement or possibility of error was being stamped out?) this didn't change the overall picture too much. It would be nice to think that with no further errors apparent everyone could accept what the data was (still) showing..

drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/ - The site of, or at least about, Dr Roy Spencer. Here we have a chap who appears to be taking his skepticism seriously and making and argument based on modelling and potential errors. On the downside it seems like his work has been pretty effectively refuted, mostly because the errors he found appear to be the result of a rather strong data selection bias. Not selecting a limited sub-set of the worst possible cases leads to different conclusions. He also appears to be government funded, I thought that was only for the conspirators?

This is the surface view, I haven't had time to go in to any of this in detail. Interesting though.

[happyjack27]

Again, you are welcome to submit your own research to a reputable peer reviewed journal.

Bear in mind that you need to publish your method and data to the extent that other people can verify your results.

It's already been done. The warmists ignore it.

It's the warmists who seem unable to produce data and method simultaneously.

oh wow, you should have led with that. we have a published scientist in the room!

what journal have you published in? can you provide a link to your article?

[happyjack27]

would be simple enough to just take a plane to antartic, drill an ice core, and look at it yourself, and see that the ice layers don't correspond to the official record.

It is already an established fact the fossil record does not have the resolution to resolve such climatic effects over only a few decades time, and that over the period of several centuries it can resolve, that it solely supports the concept that rising CO2 is a lagging indicator of a warming climate.

i'll take this as you having no intention of collecting any actual evidence to support your bat-shit crazy claim.

[NotAPhysicist]

Possibly also trials for attempted crimes against humanity.

Can I suggest that is a little dramatic. Even if there were a global conspiracy to to push us towards cleaner energy solutions the idea that the resultant world with lower overall pollution, increased air quality and a power system now based on something that won't eventually run out is such a bad idea that it warrants a crime against humanity is a bit extreme. If we want to start punishing people that severely about things that have theoretically made peoples lives worse I'm pretty sure we can a number of alternative targets. Perhaps one for another time

Meanwhile I think that (conventional) trials are fairly likely to (eventually) come about on the other side of this. The quite deliberate obscuring of the problem by oil companies is pretty directly comparable to what happened with the tobacco industry, smoking and cancer - just on a much bigger scale. I'm assuming no one is going to argue that the 'smoking causes cancer and was being actively denied' thing is all a conspiracy too but please let me know if not.

As an aside I don't understand why the oil companies who had money and forewarning didn't capitalize by dumping a load of cash in to R&D to find and profit from a load of solutions. Since they had something of a first mover advantage and the cash and expertise to actually get something done surely there was a huge potential for making a killing without all the danger. That actually seems like the strongest anti-AGW argument I can see really, how could they be that crazy? Still, easy profits now over difficult profits sometime in the future I suppose.

[happyjack27]

Possibly also trials for attempted crimes against humanity.

As an aside I don't understand why the oil companies who had money and forewarning didn't capitalize by dumping a load of cash in to R&D to find and profit from a load of solutions. Since they had something of a first mover advantage and the cash and expertise to actually get something done surely there was a huge potential for making a killing without all the danger. That actually seems like the strongest anti-AGW argument I can see really, how could they be that crazy? Still, easy profits now over difficult profits sometime in the future I suppose.

it's a wonder, too, why they're pouring all of their money into such quakery, rather than doing actual legitimate scientific research. you'd think if the facts were on their side -- which presumably they are (there clearly isn't any conflict of interest) -- with the enormous money they spend on preaching the controversy, they could produce tons of quality verifiable scientific research proving that everything we know about chemistry, thermodynamics, meteorology, quantum physics, astronomy, electromagnetics, etc... is wrong. curious that with all that capital dedicated towards "finding the truth", the ends of their labor are quite literally laughable! it's almost as if... dare i say it... reality doesn't fit into their narrative.

[TDPerk]

Are you frickin' blind??!? Try the frickin' google!: https://www.google.com/search?q=factors ... 80&bih=935

It is a very specific claim, that the adjustment of -1 is not adequate to the siting of those two referenced surface stations. Instead of meaningless, non-specific image salad, try refuting the specific claim with something specific.

Be aware the entirety of the warmists' data sets are suspect owing to just such spurious adjustments which happen to a close order of linearity, to produce "warming" which roughly matches theory which is not present on the approx. last twenty years of untampered with satellite data. None of the images you linked to address that.

i'll take this as you having no intention of collecting any actual evidence to support your bat-shit crazy claim.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/ ... s-at-most/
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming ... ore-graph/

oh wow, you should have led with that. we have a published scientist in the room!

what journal have you published in? can you provide a link to your article?

In support of the fraud you believe in, you are here lying to us now. I have said nothing which could be reasonably misinterpreted as my claiming to be a published researcher on the topic.

A collection of links showing how data was reported--in some cases falsely--to be unavailable is here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

Ultimately, after years of like criticism, Michael Mann withdrew his fraudulent hockeystick graph claim when it was shown to be statistically unsupportable--his method would have produced a hockeystick no matter what contrary data set was fed in, and the particularly sharp rise in the iconographic chart was produced by a cherry picked single tree core.

you are the one making the extraordinary claim: a massive world wide conspiracy, and all the data on climate, specifically, and nothing else, is fraudulent. cell phones, tv's, radio, etc., on the other hand, is all just fine.

How does the few tens of researchers implicated in the ClimateGate emails count as massive? The rest of the folks are just along for the ride--or like Al Gore, for the graft.

Milliken's error was innocent. It still ensnared people attempting to replicate his work for decades following.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/odds-are-its-wrong
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... goes-wrong
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/09/re ... arget.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-scien ... 2P20120328

Most of that refers to work where there is no cause for controversy.

There is not merely cause for controversy here, it is known from testable facts that key papers supporting AGW are not merely wrong, but are fraud.

[happyjack27]

would be simple enough to just take a plane to antartic, drill an ice core, and look at it yourself, and see that the ice layers don't correspond to the official record.

It is already an established fact the fossil record does not have the resolution to resolve such climatic effects over only a few decades time, and that over the period of several centuries it can resolve, that it solely supports the concept that rising CO2 is a lagging indicator of a warming climate.

i see your red herring and i raise you -- wait, why are you talking about the fossil record?! -- no matter, here you can see the historical relation between CO2 and temperature, with a pretty decent explanation of their feedback processes:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-la ... rature.htm

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.



Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.


This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

[TDPerk]

Possibly also trials for attempted crimes against humanity.

Can I suggest that is a little dramatic.

Only if the same people committing the fraud had not suggested extremist green policies which would result in such a death toll.

To the best of my knowledge, both Hansen and Mann have done so.

[happyjack27]

oh wow, you should have led with that. we have a published scientist in the room!

what journal have you published in? can you provide a link to your article?

In support of the fraud you believe in, you are here lying to us now. I have said nothing which could be reasonably misinterpreted as my claiming to be a published researcher on the topic.

Again, you are welcome to submit your own research to a reputable peer reviewed journal.

Bear in mind that you need to publish your method and data to the extent that other people can verify your results.

It's already been done. The warmists ignore it.

[TDPerk]

You brought up the topic of fossil ice cores. I have already linked to the actual record. If it's a red herring, it's yours. Nevertheless, in fact, CO2 increases follow climate temp increases in the record shown in such ice cores. They do not precede it.