Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change

Jones is worse than a joke. his original UHI paper was a fraud, and he knew it at least after the fact, yet he continued to cite it.

If you think Jones is worse than a joke, let's play Paleoclimatology 001 and you tell us how to construct the climate of the past 1000 years!



I would prefer to talk about Jones' UHI paper. it was done with Chinese temperature series. Jones said his rural series were long standing stations with no movements and continuous records. it turns out that he defined rural as less than 200,000 people (?!?!), and of his 60+ sites more than fifty had moved! when he was asked for his data he said he had lost it! (just like he lost his CRUTemp data). his co-author in the US was brought up on fraud charges but managed to blame a yet another un-credited co-author back in China. Jones claimed a 0.005C/yr effect but they decided that the proper course of action was to just add 0.005C to the error bars.

once Jones had been informed of the multitude of mistakes in this paper did he retract it or even put an addendum on it saying that it was unreliable? of course not! he even continued to cite it.


when I have more time perhaps we should discuss the selection of proxies used for temp reconstructions. the cherry picking, faulty methodologies, and lack of updates when new info is available is just about the strongest sign of scientific malfeasance possible.

I've never read Jones' UHI paper and if it exists on an internet search engine, it's covered with a ton of Denialista spam. You may think getting information from a blog is information, but I don't and it isn't unless it's a somewhat private blog of professionals exchanging information. My experience in examining Denialista claims is they have always turned out to be baseless and a waste of time, but Denialistas are all about wasting other people's time.

Jones was involved in setting up 5 degree lattitude and 5 degree longitude grids and that date would indicate one of the early HadCRUT maps which had good bit of China missing data for many grids, like 40% to 50%. I don't know what Jones' paper was about, but for an urban heat island to be meaningful over such a large area requires a lot of asphalt and many cities to change the area much differently than rural measurements. It's not the size of the city that's important, but what the city is like. The HadCRUT grids are large enough that they can contain many geographic features with different climates. You also have the problem of having good data during a base period of 30 years and HadCRUT has been using 1961 to 1990 as a base period, at least lately. That may be why Jones wrote a 1990 paper, but wouldn't Jones have been involved with setting up these grids all over the world?

You do realize don't you if Jones biased the base period upward, it would show less increase in temperatrure after the base period? Temperature data tends to be biased upward, until there is vigilance to make the data representative of a grid. Once established, there is a very conscious effort to obtain reliable data, because it will screw up future measurements, whether it's biased one way or the other, if you don't. You should also realize a task the size of China would require a trained team to accomplish. I seriously doubt Jones was running all over China examining weather stations to make sure the data provided is representative of the grid. The Chinese wouldn't have been concerned before HadCRUT to make their temperature measurements representative of a grid that hadn't been established before the system was set up. The station is usually assigned to a meteorologist who reports monthly averages of continuous measurements back to the archive. Grids need enough stations to be averaged into representative measurements.

As far as the other stuff goes, Jones would need a computer bank to carry around that amount of data and didn't he leave HadCRUT before all the testimony you are citing? 5 degree by 5 degree grids are rather large, but if you had to set them up everywhere where you could on the Earth and examine the reliability and continuity of weather station data for the past 30 years, then it had to require a considerable effort, even before receiving data to your archive.

See if you can find Jones' UHI paper and I don't see how someone can object or support anything they just hear about on a blog without reading it. Later, I'll try to check some other sources where it won't be buried in Denialista spam. A lot of good science has been buried on the internet by the nonsense of the right-wing and I'm not just talking about climate science.
 
Odd that when those really into science on this board post information about a given paper, they post the paper. Like with Dr. Hansen's 1981 paper and the predictions made in that paper.
 
They once called this "science" too!

shock-therapy_medium_jpg.jpg
 
:lol::lol::lol: Sure thing little troll....My wife predicted this would be your response. She's a psychologist and she has you nailed! Which, sad to say is not hard.

You must find being married to a psychologist (too bad she isn't a psychiatrist then she could diagnose and actually medically treat mental disorders) extremely convenient.





Actually it is. She and I have many very spirited discussions on science and she has allways taken a counter view to mine on AGW until i asked her to look at a "scientific paper" that was trying to determine the best possible way to get the AGW message accross to the people.

She took one look at that and said "if that is what they think a study should be concentrating on then it truly isn't a science anymore, that is pure propaganda and she is now firmly on my side.

And you would be amazed how many connections she has...did you know that every major HR department has a masters level psychologist on staff...she knows a whole bunch of them... Slowly but surely we will corrupt them all and actually encourage them to do their own research and actually think about what is presented to them.

Our first target is the WWF who's HR director is a good friend of my wifes.

So yes, having a PhD psychologist for my wife is very, very helpful!:razz:
 
I am not aware of any "scam," but anthropogenic forced climate change is a reality and a challenge that we as a civilization will either address or be subject to. The costs of addressing it are much less, the sooner we start taking substantive measures (preventative and adaptive). The longer such is put off, the more it will cost in dollars, time and lives.
Silly boy......it's all about global governance.
Didn't you learn anything from East Anglia???
Need more?
1. How about a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia admitting that it's all about funding?
a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.
b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.
So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.
c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’
http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf
Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.
d. Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century “saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also…”

Wise up.

You would have to exceptionally retarded or completely brainwashed to get that nonsense out of what Dr. Hulme actually said in that article you cited. He was critiquing and debunking a piece of trash pseudo-science called 'Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years', by S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery.


Grow a brain, retard.


Direct quote from this professor of 'climate science':

"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."



Do you understand what he is admitting???


The social ramifications of his getting funded and having the ear of policy makers is more important....according to him....than whether or not the science of global warming is accurate.


I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works!
 
I'm going to end every response to Rolling Thunder with either "Go Fuck yourself" "Fuck Off" "Go Fuck Sandy Fluke" or "STFU"

I might add a few other to the list as well.
 
I'm going to end every response to Rolling Thunder with either "Go Fuck yourself" "Fuck Off" "Go Fuck Sandy Fluke" or "STFU"
Well of course you are, CrazyFruitcake, and that is because you are a retard with his panties in a twist over the fact that I'm always helping you to demonstrate to the whole world just how incredibly retarded and ignorant you are. Without your imbecilic and meaning-free posts to work with, I would have a much harder time demonstrating that fact. So, thanks for being such a good example of just how brainwashed and insane this astro-turfed cult of AGW denial really is. You even manage to make some of the other denier cult retards look semi-intelligent and that is not at all an easy feat to accomplish.
 
Silly boy......it's all about global governance.
Didn't you learn anything from East Anglia???
Need more?
1. How about a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia admitting that it's all about funding?
a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.
b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.
So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.
c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’
http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf
Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.
d. Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century “saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also…”

Wise up.

You would have to exceptionally retarded or completely brainwashed to get that nonsense out of what Dr. Hulme actually said in that article you cited. He was critiquing and debunking a piece of trash pseudo-science called 'Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years', by S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery.


Grow a brain, retard.

Direct quote from this professor of 'climate science':

"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."

Do you understand what he is admitting???

The social ramifications of his getting funded and having the ear of policy makers is more important....according to him....than whether or not the science of global warming is accurate.

I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works!


I understand what he is saying. You quite obviously don't. I suppose you being a brainwashed retard has something to do with that.
 
You would have to exceptionally retarded or completely brainwashed to get that nonsense out of what Dr. Hulme actually said in that article you cited. He was critiquing and debunking a piece of trash pseudo-science called 'Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years', by S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery.


Grow a brain, retard.

Direct quote from this professor of 'climate science':

"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."

Do you understand what he is admitting???

The social ramifications of his getting funded and having the ear of policy makers is more important....according to him....than whether or not the science of global warming is accurate.

I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works!


I understand what he is saying. You quite obviously don't. I suppose you being a brainwashed retard has something to do with that.



RT- you are breathtakingly stupid. you are shown a quote where someone is saying that scientists should trade in their scientific integrity for a short term boost in the politics of an uncertain climate doomsday scenario and you agree with it!

what happens when we go ten years without the effects of all the dire predictions coming true? oh wait.....that has already happened. climate scientists are trading in all the banked reputation that scientists of all fields have earned over decades and decades. I am concerned that the next time science cries 'wolf' there will be nobody listening because of the travesty of global warming and the triumph of politics over scientific reasoning.
 
You would have to exceptionally retarded or completely brainwashed to get that nonsense out of what Dr. Hulme actually said in that article you cited. He was critiquing and debunking a piece of trash pseudo-science called 'Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years', by S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery.


Grow a brain, retard.

Direct quote from this professor of 'climate science':

"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."

Do you understand what he is admitting???

The social ramifications of his getting funded and having the ear of policy makers is more important....according to him....than whether or not the science of global warming is accurate.

I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works!


I understand what he is saying. You quite obviously don't. I suppose you being a brainwashed retard has something to do with that.




No, you don't understand.
He is saying that it turns out to be far too easy keeping dolts like you in thrall.

Having you explain science is like having Dr Kevorkian teaching the Heimlich Maneuver.
 
I'm going to end every response to Rolling Thunder with either "Go Fuck yourself" "Fuck Off" "Go Fuck Sandy Fluke" or "STFU"
Well of course you are, CrazyFruitcake, and that is because you are a retard with his panties in a twist over the fact that I'm always helping you to demonstrate to the whole world just how incredibly retarded and ignorant you are. Without your imbecilic and meaning-free posts to work with, I would have a much harder time demonstrating that fact. So, thanks for being such a good example of just how brainwashed and insane this astro-turfed cult of AGW denial really is. You even manage to make some of the other denier cult retards look semi-intelligent and that is not at all an easy feat to accomplish.

You have the worse case of AGW Tourettes, you just keep spouting off like the fucking moron you are.

That's all AGW is, bunch of fucking trained monkeys linking to the same failed ideas over and over and over and over. Whenever we challenge you, you resort to insults, because at the end of the day you have nothing to add.

Fuck Off
 
Direct quote from this professor of 'climate science':

"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."



Do you understand what he is admitting???


The social ramifications of his getting funded and having the ear of policy makers is more important....according to him....than whether or not the science of global warming is accurate.

This is not what Dr Hulme implied (or "admitted"), and only the delusional distortions of fringe extremists would be so biased and disingenuous as to try to torture such from his words.

At its best, this is second hand quote-mining with a lot of very "creative" and very subjectively biased interpretation.

http://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/the-five-lessons-of-climate-change.pdf
 
Last edited:
Direct quote from this professor of 'climate science':

"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."



Do you understand what he is admitting???


The social ramifications of his getting funded and having the ear of policy makers is more important....according to him....than whether or not the science of global warming is accurate.

This is not what Dr Hulme implied (or "admitted"), and only the delusional distortions of fringe extremists would be so biased and disingenuous as to try to torture such from his words.

At its best, this is second hand quote-mining with a lot of very "creative" and very subjectively biased interpretation.

http://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/the-five-lessons-of-climate-change.pdf



It's a direct quote.

Truth is pretty darn far from environmentalism.
You might want to see this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/271201-the-hateful-malignant-environmentalists.html
 
Last edited:
Direct quote from this professor of 'climate science':

"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."



Do you understand what he is admitting???


The social ramifications of his getting funded and having the ear of policy makers is more important....according to him....than whether or not the science of global warming is accurate.

This is not what Dr Hulme implied (or "admitted"), and only the delusional distortions of fringe extremists would be so biased and disingenuous as to try to torture such from his words.

At its best, this is second hand quote-mining with a lot of very "creative" and very subjectively biased interpretation.

http://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/the-five-lessons-of-climate-change.pdf



It's a direct quote.

Truth is pretty darn far from environmentalism.
You might want to see this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/271201-the-hateful-malignant-environmentalists.html

I was speaking of the piece's author, not your reposting of the author's words.
 
This is not what Dr Hulme implied (or "admitted"), and only the delusional distortions of fringe extremists would be so biased and disingenuous as to try to torture such from his words.

At its best, this is second hand quote-mining with a lot of very "creative" and very subjectively biased interpretation.

http://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/the-five-lessons-of-climate-change.pdf



It's a direct quote.

Truth is pretty darn far from environmentalism.
You might want to see this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/271201-the-hateful-malignant-environmentalists.html

I was speaking of the piece's author, not your reposting of the author's words.



The paragraph is directly quoted.

That's the reason for quotation marks.


direct quote
Web definitions
A quotation is the repetition of one expression as part of another one, particularly when the quoted expression is well-known or...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_quote



The meaning is obvious to those with even an elementary school education.


It is saying, and you are agreeing to the following: to believe environmentalism, you must disavow "normal truth."



Imagine your prospective bride beginning a discussion of her chastity with that paragraph.
 
Last edited:
It's a direct quote.

Truth is pretty darn far from environmentalism.
You might want to see this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/271201-the-hateful-malignant-environmentalists.html

I was speaking of the piece's author, not your reposting of the author's words.



The paragraph is directly quoted.

Actually, what you call a paragraph, is a quote-mined, sans context, section of the original material.

Slapping quotation marks around a group of words removed from the context of their original formation and then embedding those snippets into distorted interpretations and confabulations to try and make it sound like the person being quoted is agreeing with the person using those snippets is what is defined as "quote mining,"

Quote Mining
Quote mining - RationalWiki

((And the original author is not saying what is being attempted to be twisted into his words))
 
Last edited:
I was speaking of the piece's author, not your reposting of the author's words.



The paragraph is directly quoted.

Actually, what you call a paragraph, is a quote-mined, sans context, section of the original material.

Slapping quotation marks around a group of words removed from the context of their original formation and then embedding those snippets into distorted interpretations and confabulations to try and make it sound like the person being quoted is agreeing with the person using those snippets is what is defined as "quote mining,"


Quote Mining
Quote mining - RationalWiki

((And the original author is not saying what is being attempted to be twisted into his words))

Stupid is what stupid does and what we have here are mindless people only using their mouth, because they have no mind to back it up.

I've tried to be a teacher and have failed, long before coming to here. How do you teach people who already know reality and will lie for their agenda? All you can do is make it so they don't have the only voice to delude others. We know shit is going down in this world and they will say it's happened before and means nothing. No matter what happens, the fools will always be fools. Some are fools, but most are people put on websites paid to lie.

I brought up that point on WUWT. Free speech doesn't mean you can say destorying your planet will keep you from the consequence of legal action against you. I didn't press the point and simply said it. I was banned from the place and before then they wouldn't allow my input if the science didn't support their agenda. I still think they need to be sued and the future will prove it. I don't money from them fucking fools, but the government and the people of our may have a different mind, so let me hear them cry then.
 
The paragraph is directly quoted.

Actually, what you call a paragraph, is a quote-mined, sans context, section of the original material.

Slapping quotation marks around a group of words removed from the context of their original formation and then embedding those snippets into distorted interpretations and confabulations to try and make it sound like the person being quoted is agreeing with the person using those snippets is what is defined as "quote mining,"


Quote Mining
Quote mining - RationalWiki

((And the original author is not saying what is being attempted to be twisted into his words))

Stupid is what stupid does and what we have here are mindless people only using their mouth, because they have no mind to back it up.

I've tried to be a teacher and have failed, long before coming to here. How do you teach people who already know reality and will lie for their agenda? All you can do is make it so they don't have the only voice to delude others. We know shit is going down in this world and they will say it's happened before and means nothing. No matter what happens, the fools will always be fools. Some are fools, but most are people put on websites paid to lie.

I brought up that point on WUWT. Free speech doesn't mean you can say destorying your planet will keep you from the consequence of legal action against you. I didn't press the point and simply said it. I was banned from the place and before then they wouldn't allow my input if the science didn't support their agenda. I still think they need to be sued and the future will prove it. I don't money from them fucking fools, but the government and the people of our may have a different mind, so let me hear them cry then.



s0n......like I said......nobody cares.


1472-1-1.gif




ps.....this is from Pew Research.........."global warming" didnt even make the list in Feb '12.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top