Koch Brothers funded Climate Research. What they found? Oooh, that's gotta hurt.

[edthecynic]

The Berkley project is a science front for a PR firm... Thats already been proven..

Don't you just love how CON$ call their pontifications "proof."
The only thing that has been "proven" is your stupidity.

No the head scientist at that project and most of the staff with him are on the board of an ECO-PR firm... I already showed this earlier.. The entire study is a concocted bit of pseudo-science...

You care to try and deny hes not the head of a Eco consulting firm??? Come on please deny it.... I dare you...

Here is yet another example of CON$ervative dishonesty. The deceiver demonizes the project because he says the leader heads a "PR firm" but when he challenges me he admits it is a CONSULTING firm, not a PR firm. It is an energy CONSULTING firm whose consulting projects include nuclear power generation, oil pipeline leak detection, oil recovery, coal gasification, battery and fuel cell technologies. But because they consult on the efficient use of these energy sources he demonizes them as an ECO firm and therefore unscientific!

Like I said you have only proven your stupidity.

Basically this comes back to CON$ controlling the definitions. CON$ claim they believe in freedom and liberty, but they have to control everything, especially the language. They define everything even people's intent, whether the people are alive or dead. They are always telling us what the "original intent" of the founders was, and that settles it. The individual is not even free to say what they intend or mean by what they say, that is how absolute the control is that CON$ demand.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

 

[edthecynic]

a year ago, and again after Muller's congressional statement, I said both sides would be disappointed with the BEST results. I predicted a small decrease in trend (wrong) and a large increase in uncertainty (?wrong?).

here is a plot of BEST monthly data and 95% CI. thanks to Willis

I must admit that this was the type of graph that I was expecting rather than smoothed and re-smoothed narrow lines that give a totally different picture of what is going on. I am not sure how they got from the monthly unsmoothed data with considerable uncertainty to smoothed 10 year average data with very little uncertainty but I am not a statistician.

lies, damned lies, and statistics. its funny how climate science is so prone to influenceing public opinion simply by the way they present the evidence.

Your first chart does not come from Berkley, and does not seem to match the Berkley data. I notice you didn't give the link to your source, probably because it is the dishonest Anthony Watts site.

What the BEST data actually says | Watts Up With That?

Here is the Berkley website with the data at the bottom on the page that was supposedly used;

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)

Click to download analysis chart data.

Here are a couple of charts and pull quotes from the Anthony Watts site about the BEST data.

Figure 2. UAH and RSS satellite temperature records. Anomaly period 1979-1984 = 0.

Remember what we would expect to find if all of the ground records were correct. They’d all lie on or near the same line, and the satellite temperatures would be rising faster than the ground temperatures. Here are the actual results, showing BEST, satellite, GISS, CRUTEM, and GHCN land temperatures:

Figure 3. BEST, average satellite, and other estimates of the global land temperature over the satellite era. Anomaly period 1979-1984 = 0.



Notice how two different anomaly periods are used, one of which is only 5 years!!!!! No honest person would ever use an anomaly period of less than 20 years.

Here is another bit of dishonesty from the Watts site;

Oh, yeah, one more thing. At the top of the BEST dataset there’s a note that says:

Estimated 1950-1980 absolute temperature: 7.11 +/- 0.50
​

Seven degrees C? The GISS folks don’t even give an average, they just say it’s globally about 14°C.
The HadCRUT data gives a global temperature about the same, 13.9°C, using a gridded absolute temperature dataset. Finally, the Kiehl/Trenberth global budget gives a black-body radiation value of 390 W/m2, which converts to 14.8°. So I figured that was kind of settled, that the earth’s average temperature (an elusive concept to be sure) was around fourteen or fifteen degrees C.
Now, without a single word of comment that I can find, BEST says it’s only 7.1 degrees … say what? Anyone have an explanation for that?


The explanation is obvious to honest people, the Watts site is comparing two different temperature periods. The HadCRUT average temp, for example, is from the period 1961 to 1999, a 40 year average, but the BEST average is from 1950 to 1980, a shorter and earlier temp period. Only someone intent on deception would ever compare the two!!! HadCRUT starts 10 years warmer and extends 20 years warmer than the BEST average ... say Watts? Anyone have an explanation for that?

first off, this article is not written by Anthony Watts it is written by Willis Eschenbach.

second point- the graph with land based temps compared to satellite temps has an anomaly period of 1979-84 for a specific reason, to start all the data lines at the same value so that we can see how they vary versus each other with respect to time. the other chart with both satellite records is only there to show that the results would be the same with either set of satellite records.

dont you ever try to figure out what is being shown to you?

your issue with BEST declaring a specific and overly precise figure for global temperature needs you to be more specific. are you arguing that you would prefer that they add an offset to their particular version of calculating 'global temperature' to match other people's calculated values by their own versions of defining 'global temperature'? obviously average global temperature is only a made up term that is calculated by some sort of definition chosen by the group doing the calculations.

First of all, I didn't say Watts wrote it, I said it was from Watts' WEBSITE. Watts is the only person dishonest enough to post such crap.

Second of all, whatever the rationalization, a 5 year anomaly average is dishonest, and you know it!!!

And finally, to compare an absolute temp from data sets that use completely different temperature periods and then imply that there is something dishonest about the BEST absolute temp being different from the others is the height of dishonesty that only a denier who wants to demonize the BEST project would be stupid enough to swallow!

 

[IanC]

edthecynic said-

whatever the rationalization, a 5 year anomaly average is dishonest, and you know it!!!

the point of the graph is to compare the shapes of the various data sets from the beginning of the satellite era. to do that you have to set all of the lines to zero at the beginning. if you just take all of the lines at a specific date then you wouldnt get a good fit, therefore you take an average of the first five years and set that to zero, and as can be easily seen all of the graph lines match up well for the first decade and then start to depart from each other. no one cares what the absolute numbers are, the thing being studied here is how much difference there is at the end of the time period when all the lines started out equal.

the normalization period could have been 1, 3, 5, 10 years but Willis chose 5 years and as can be readily seen that does a good job of grouping all the temperature readings together at the beginning. we are looking at the anomalies not the actual numbers.

 

[IanC]

from that graph it appears that BEST temperatures rose roughly 0.9C from beginning point to end point. it is hard to tell where the starting point is for the satellite but it cant be more than 0.45C. that is twice as much warming for BEST compared to UAH. even snipping off some of the difference for the low start of BEST leaves a large discrepancy of 0.3C

 

[gslack]

The Berkley project is a science front for a PR firm... Thats already been proven..

Don't you just love how CON$ call their pontifications "proof."
The only thing that has been "proven" is your stupidity.

Hey edthecynic, just keep in mind that you are arguing with someone who doesn't believe even pollution is harmful to human, fish or foul.

And you like talking to yourself, as well as lie like a rug... The second is already proven here in this thread...Now care to address what I did say instead of what you want to believe?

 

[Si modo]

Only rdean (and other idiots) would think that verification of data is hurtful.

 

[gslack]

Don't you just love how CON$ call their pontifications "proof."
The only thing that has been "proven" is your stupidity.

No the head scientist at that project and most of the staff with him are on the board of an ECO-PR firm... I already showed this earlier.. The entire study is a concocted bit of pseudo-science...

You care to try and deny hes not the head of a Eco consulting firm??? Come on please deny it.... I dare you...

Here is yet another example of CON$ervative dishonesty. The deceiver demonizes the project because he says the leader heads a "PR firm" but when he challenges me he admits it is a CONSULTING firm, not a PR firm. It is an energy CONSULTING firm whose consulting projects include nuclear power generation, oil pipeline leak detection, oil recovery, coal gasification, battery and fuel cell technologies. But because they consult on the efficient use of these energy sources he demonizes them as an ECO firm and therefore unscientific!

Like I said you have only proven your stupidity.

Basically this comes back to CON$ controlling the definitions. CON$ claim they believe in freedom and liberty, but they have to control everything, especially the language. They define everything even people's intent, whether the people are alive or dead. They are always telling us what the "original intent" of the founders was, and that settles it. The individual is not even free to say what they intend or mean by what they say, that is how absolute the control is that CON$ demand.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

Seriously... You do this everytime you get nailed... You make a bold claim and when its thrown back at you, you call the person a con$ervative and cite Rush Limbaugh... Grow up...

The fact still remains the same. His scientific body was created to to help his business. A business that makes money by advising companies how to develop a good Public Relations image regarding climate change, and strategies to make them more ecologically conscious... That means his company relies on there being AGW, and if there isn't AGW, it folds.. Meaning it was pretty convenient he headed the Berkeley Groups little pseudo-science project..

Now spare me your childish distractions...

 

[Old Rocks]

A visual representation of the data that the Muller group is presenting.

Cooling the Warming Debate - YouTube

 

[Old Rocks]

Same conclusion as presented before Congress.

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_UHI

Abstract
The effect of urban heating on estimates of global average land surface temperature is
studied by applying an urban-rural classification based on MODIS satellite data to the
Berkeley Earth temperature dataset compilation of 39,028 sites from 10 different publicly
available sources. We compare the distribution of linear temperature trends for these sites to
the distribution for a rural subset of 16,132 sites chosen to be distant from all MODISidentified
urban areas. While the trend distributions are broad, with one-third of the stations
in the US and worldwide having a negative trend, both distributions show significant
warming. Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using the
Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of
these shows a slight negative slope over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.19°C ±
0.19 / 100yr (95% confidence), opposite in sign to that expected if the urban heat island
effect was adding anomalous warming to the record. The small size, and its negative sign,
supports the key conclusion of prior groups that urban warming does not unduly bias
estimates of recent global temperature change.

 

[Old Rocks]

A for sure change of about 1/2 degree Celsius since 1950. Kind of shoots down you yappers about the data from the weather stations.

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Averaging_Process

Abstract
A new mathematical framework is presented for producing maps and large-scale
averages of temperature changes from weather station data for the purposes of climate analysis.
This allows one to include short and discontinuous temperature records, so that nearly all
temperature data can be used. The framework contains a weighting process that assesses the
quality and consistency of a spatial network of temperature stations as an integral part of the
averaging process. This permits data with varying levels of quality to be used without
compromising the accuracy of the resulting reconstructions. Lastly, the process presented here is
extensible to spatial networks of arbitrary density (or locally varying density) while maintaining
the expected spatial relationships. In this paper, this framework is applied to the Global
Historical Climatology Network land temperature dataset to present a new global land
temperature reconstruction from 1800 to present with error uncertainties that include many key
effects. In so doing, we find that the global land mean temperature has increased by 0.911 ±
0.042 C since the 1950s (95% confidence for statistical and spatial uncertainties). This change is
consistent with global land-surface warming results previously reported, but with reduced
uncertainty.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A for sure change of about 1/2 degree Celsius since 1950. Kind of shoots down you yappers about the data from the weather stations.

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Averaging_Process

Abstract
A new mathematical framework is presented for producing maps and large-scale
averages of temperature changes from weather station data for the purposes of climate analysis.
This allows one to include short and discontinuous temperature records, so that nearly all
temperature data can be used. The framework contains a weighting process that assesses the
quality and consistency of a spatial network of temperature stations as an integral part of the
averaging process. This permits data with varying levels of quality to be used without
compromising the accuracy of the resulting reconstructions. Lastly, the process presented here is
extensible to spatial networks of arbitrary density (or locally varying density) while maintaining
the expected spatial relationships. In this paper, this framework is applied to the Global
Historical Climatology Network land temperature dataset to present a new global land
temperature reconstruction from 1800 to present with error uncertainties that include many key
effects. In so doing, we find that the global land mean temperature has increased by 0.911 ±
0.042 C since the 1950s (95% confidence for statistical and spatial uncertainties). This change is
consistent with global land-surface warming results previously reported, but with reduced
uncertainty.

And you're never able to produce any lab experiments that successfully isolate the effect to a 100ppm increase in CO2 because...

 

[Old Rocks]

Hows the hollow moon coming along, Frank?

 

[edthecynic]

edthecynic said-

whatever the rationalization, a 5 year anomaly average is dishonest, and you know it!!!

the point of the graph is to compare the shapes of the various data sets from the beginning of the satellite era. to do that you have to set all of the lines to zero at the beginning. if you just take all of the lines at a specific date then you wouldnt get a good fit, therefore you take an average of the first five years and set that to zero, and as can be easily seen all of the graph lines match up well for the first decade and then start to depart from each other. no one cares what the absolute numbers are, the thing being studied here is how much difference there is at the end of the time period when all the lines started out equal.

the normalization period could have been 1, 3, 5, 10 years but Willis chose 5 years and as can be readily seen that does a good job of grouping all the temperature readings together at the beginning. we are looking at the anomalies not the actual numbers.

The purpose of the graph was to discredit BEST because it does not support the deniers' preconceived bias. That is the only reason a 5 year average is used for measuring anomalies. You never use less than 20 years as an average to measure an anomaly against, and there certainly was a lot more than 20 years worth of data. You can use 5 years for smoothing, but never for anomalies.

 

[edthecynic]

No the head scientist at that project and most of the staff with him are on the board of an ECO-PR firm... I already showed this earlier.. The entire study is a concocted bit of pseudo-science...

You care to try and deny hes not the head of a Eco consulting firm??? Come on please deny it.... I dare you...

Here is yet another example of CON$ervative dishonesty. The deceiver demonizes the project because he says the leader heads a "PR firm" but when he challenges me he admits it is a CONSULTING firm, not a PR firm. It is an energy CONSULTING firm whose consulting projects include nuclear power generation, oil pipeline leak detection, oil recovery, coal gasification, battery and fuel cell technologies. But because they consult on the efficient use of these energy sources he demonizes them as an ECO firm and therefore unscientific!

Like I said you have only proven your stupidity.

Basically this comes back to CON$ controlling the definitions. CON$ claim they believe in freedom and liberty, but they have to control everything, especially the language. They define everything even people's intent, whether the people are alive or dead. They are always telling us what the "original intent" of the founders was, and that settles it. The individual is not even free to say what they intend or mean by what they say, that is how absolute the control is that CON$ demand.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

Seriously... You do this everytime you get nailed... You make a bold claim and when its thrown back at you, you call the person a con$ervative and cite Rush Limbaugh... Grow up...

The fact still remains the same. His scientific body was created to to help his business. A business that makes money by advising companies how to develop a good Public Relations image regarding climate change, and strategies to make them more ecologically conscious... That means his company relies on there being AGW, and if there isn't AGW, it folds.. Meaning it was pretty convenient he headed the Berkeley Groups little pseudo-science project..

Now spare me your childish distractions...

In typical fashion, when caught lying, CON$ just keep on lying. The company has nothing to do with PUBLIC RELATIONS. They advise company, governments, research groups, etc., on how to use their energy resources efficiently. You are just full of shit!!!

YOU do not get to define what the company does!
Get it!

 

[Old Rocks]

Cooling the Warming Debate - YouTube

Look at the Anarctic for the last 20 years. Kind of puts the yap that the deniers have been putting out about it getting cooler there to bed.

In fact, this kind of visualiztion really shows the increase in rate of warming for the last 20 years. And how far it is from normal variation. Not that the board denialists will ever admit just how wrong that they are.

 

[Si modo]

Cooling the Warming Debate - YouTube

Look at the Anarctic for the last 20 years. Kind of puts the yap that the deniers have been putting out about it getting cooler there to bed.

In fact, this kind of visualiztion really shows the increase in rate of warming for the last 20 years. And how far it is from normal variation. Not that the board denialists will ever admit just how wrong that they are.

So the 'deniers' are just denying warming?

Good, we've got that cleared up.

But, you call those who don't deny that 'deniers' as well.

Do you actually think clearly? Can you?

 

[gslack]

Here is yet another example of CON$ervative dishonesty. The deceiver demonizes the project because he says the leader heads a "PR firm" but when he challenges me he admits it is a CONSULTING firm, not a PR firm. It is an energy CONSULTING firm whose consulting projects include nuclear power generation, oil pipeline leak detection, oil recovery, coal gasification, battery and fuel cell technologies. But because they consult on the efficient use of these energy sources he demonizes them as an ECO firm and therefore unscientific!

Like I said you have only proven your stupidity.

Basically this comes back to CON$ controlling the definitions. CON$ claim they believe in freedom and liberty, but they have to control everything, especially the language. They define everything even people's intent, whether the people are alive or dead. They are always telling us what the "original intent" of the founders was, and that settles it. The individual is not even free to say what they intend or mean by what they say, that is how absolute the control is that CON$ demand.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

Seriously... You do this everytime you get nailed... You make a bold claim and when its thrown back at you, you call the person a con$ervative and cite Rush Limbaugh... Grow up...

The fact still remains the same. His scientific body was created to to help his business. A business that makes money by advising companies how to develop a good Public Relations image regarding climate change, and strategies to make them more ecologically conscious... That means his company relies on there being AGW, and if there isn't AGW, it folds.. Meaning it was pretty convenient he headed the Berkeley Groups little pseudo-science project..

Now spare me your childish distractions...

In typical fashion, when caught lying, CON$ just keep on lying. The company has nothing to do with PUBLIC RELATIONS. They advise company, governments, research groups, etc., on how to use their energy resources efficiently. You are just full of shit!!!

YOU do not get to define what the company does!
Get it!

And you don't get to decide what people mean when they say things...

BTW, if you are talking to me than address your speech to me, not to the board like a child begging for attention...

IF the company is as you say they are why do they say this on their front page?

Muller & Associates™ | Impartial Energy Expertise™

"We know that in order to be effective, solutions must be sustainable… and we know that for businesses, sustainable solutions must be profitable as well."

Sounds like they are into making money with eco-conscious alternatives, and that requires what exactly? A good public image as well as some scientific crap to back you...

The further this by saying....

"GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering."

What do they mean by "politically neutral counsel" ? Counsel means the consult and what does that entail? telling people what to do to best help their business or acheive their goals, in this case its telling how to get support from people.. PUBLIC RELATIONS.....

Douchebag, consulting governments, agencies, and all the people they say they say requires PR work, that wouldn't be a very effective consulting firm if they couldn't consult on the public aspect of it now would it?

Now please grow up and stop trying to twist and distract from the fact you were caught once again lying...

 

[edthecynic]

Seriously... You do this everytime you get nailed... You make a bold claim and when its thrown back at you, you call the person a con$ervative and cite Rush Limbaugh... Grow up...

The fact still remains the same. His scientific body was created to to help his business. A business that makes money by advising companies how to develop a good Public Relations image regarding climate change, and strategies to make them more ecologically conscious... That means his company relies on there being AGW, and if there isn't AGW, it folds.. Meaning it was pretty convenient he headed the Berkeley Groups little pseudo-science project..

Now spare me your childish distractions...

In typical fashion, when caught lying, CON$ just keep on lying. The company has nothing to do with PUBLIC RELATIONS. They advise company, governments, research groups, etc., on how to use their energy resources efficiently. You are just full of shit!!!

YOU do not get to define what the company does!
Get it!

And you don't get to decide what people mean when they say things...

BTW, if you are talking to me than address your speech to me, not to the board like a child begging for attention...

IF the company is as you say they are why do they say this on their front page?

Muller & Associates™ | Impartial Energy Expertise™

"We know that in order to be effective, solutions must be sustainable… and we know that for businesses, sustainable solutions must be profitable as well."

Sounds like they are into making money with eco-conscious alternatives, and that requires what exactly? A good public image as well as some scientific crap to back you...

The further this by saying....

"GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering."

What do they mean by "politically neutral counsel" ? Counsel means the consult and what does that entail? telling people what to do to best help their business or acheive their goals, in this case its telling how to get support from people.. PUBLIC RELATIONS.....

Douchebag, consulting governments, agencies, and all the people they say they say requires PR work, that wouldn't be a very effective consulting firm if they couldn't consult on the public aspect of it now would it?

Now please grow up and stop trying to twist and distract from the fact you were caught once again lying...

Again, you prove that caught lying, CON$ just keep on lying. Nowhere are the words PUBLIC RELATIONS, so as you have been programmed you take other words and redefine them as PUBLIC RELATIONS. Counseling on efficient use of energy resources so businesses remain profitable is not PUBLIC RELATIONS!

YOU DON'T GET TO CONTROL THE LANGUAGE!!! PERIOD!
Get it?

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cooling the Warming Debate - YouTube

Look at the Anarctic for the last 20 years. Kind of puts the yap that the deniers have been putting out about it getting cooler there to bed.

In fact, this kind of visualiztion really shows the increase in rate of warming for the last 20 years. And how far it is from normal variation. Not that the board denialists will ever admit just how wrong that they are.

So the 'deniers' are just denying warming?

Good, we've got that cleared up.

But, you call those who don't deny that 'deniers' as well.

Do you actually think clearly? Can you?

And you said what, Sis?

 

[Si modo]

Cooling the Warming Debate - YouTube

Look at the Anarctic for the last 20 years. Kind of puts the yap that the deniers have been putting out about it getting cooler there to bed.

In fact, this kind of visualiztion really shows the increase in rate of warming for the last 20 years. And how far it is from normal variation. Not that the board denialists will ever admit just how wrong that they are.

So the 'deniers' are just denying warming?

Good, we've got that cleared up.

But, you call those who don't deny that 'deniers' as well.

Do you actually think clearly? Can you?

And you said what, Sis?

I've looked at that a few times, and I still don't even know what you are trying to say.