Could This Be Number 42????

[BackAgain]

The warmest seven years have all been since 2015; the top three being 2016, 2019 and 2020.

Does this involve any proxy data?

 

[abu afak]

What Percent of the GLOBE is Antarctica?
What was it's YEARLY temperature? Decade?
'
OP's second Link: LiveScience sub-headline

"Antarctica's frigid winter temperatures are in Contrast to trends in the rest of the World, which overall recorded its Fourth Hottest summer."​

It's called GLOBAL WARMING.

`

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yeah, I DO know. Trenberth famously claimed that his experiments didn't need to be repeatable. What does the scientific method say about repeatability?



DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR



The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



"Chairman Smith. Good morning to everyone. The Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing called ``Climate Science:
Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method.''
I'll recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement, and then the Ranking Member.
Today we will examine the scientific method as it relates
to climate change. We must ensure that the underlying science
that informs policy decisions is based on credible scientific
methodology.
I believe the climate is changing and that humans play a
role. However, I also believe significant questions remain as
to the extent. Our actions must be based on sound science. This
is the only way we will be able to better address climate
change.
Before we impose costly government regulations, we should
evaluate scientific uncertainties and ascertain the extent to
which they make it difficult to quantify humans' contribution
to climate change.
Far too often, alarmist theories on climate science
originate with scientists who operate outside of the principles
of the scientific method. The scientific method is a simple
process that has been used for centuries. It involves
identifying a question, developing a hypothesis, constructing
an experiment, and analyzing the results. If the results do not
align with the original hypothesis, the hypothesis must be
reexamined. The scientific method welcomes critiques so
theories can be refined, and it avoids speculation about
distant events for which there is no hard proof.
Alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild
guesses. The ability to predict far into the future is
impossible. Anyone stating what the climate will be in 500
years or even at the end of the century is not credible.
All too often, scientists ignore the basic tenants of
science in order to justify their claims. Their ultimate goal
appears to be to promote a personal agenda, even if the
evidence doesn't support it.
The scientific method is regarded as the foundation of
modern science. It ensures that scientific experimentation is
neither arbitrary nor subjective, and that results can be
replicated.
In the field of climate science, there is legitimate
concern that scientists are biased in favor of reaching
predetermined conclusions. This inevitably leads to alarmist
findings that are wrongfully reported as facts.
The scientific method also requires that for a hypothesis
to become a theory, a repeated validation of the results,
called reproducibility, should be possible. However, a recent
survey found that 70 percent of scientific researchers have
tried and failed to reproduce the experiments conducted by
other scientists. The lack of reproducibility is a warning that
the scientific method is not being followed and that the theory
may lack credibility.
To restore faith in science, we must uphold the principles
of scientific integrity. For example, the Science Committee
heard from whistleblowers that National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) employees put their ``thumb on the
scale'' during the analysis of data. This was done to arrive at
politically correct results that would disprove the absence of
global temperature increases from 1998 to 2012.
More recently, NOAA admitted to Committee staff that there
was no legal justification for not complying with the
Committee's lawfully issued subpoena requesting information. In
fact, we learned that it was simply a political decision to
halt any further debate on the subject. This is professional
misconduct, if not worse.
A similar event unfolded in 2009. Emails from East Anglia
University scientists were uncovered and revealed that they
frequently violated principles of scientific integrity and
attempted to halt debate about climate science.
Much of climate science today appears to be based more on
exaggerations, personal agendas, and questionable predictions
than on the scientific method. Those who engage in such actions
do a disservice to the American people and to their own
profession. Only when scientists follow the scientific method
can policymakers be confident that they are making the right
decisions. Until then, the debate should continue."

- CLIMATE SCIENCE: ASSUMPTIONS, POLICY IMPLICATIONS, AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

I hope you don't run afoul of copyright rules. Some forums look down on cut and pasting entire chapters of a book.

But I also understand you don't know a thing about any of this.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Does this involve any proxy data?

You don't know what a proxy is, do you?

Why would they need PROXY data for MODERN INSTRUMENTAL TIMES?

LOL

You guys are hilarious!

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Who'd you vote for?

Let me know when you have your first science class. I think you'll enjoy it.

The palpable fear of answering obviates any chance your critique of any other human has any basis in fact.....you dunce.

LOL

BTW....it would be another error on your part to suggest comparing educational CVs with moi.

You don't appear educated. Statistically I'm far more educated that you are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let me know when you have your first science class. I think you'll enjoy it.



LOL



You don't appear educated. Statistically I'm far more educated that you are.

Last chance: who'd you vote for, you buffoon.

 

[westwall]

I hope you don't run afoul of copyright rules. Some forums look down on cut and pasting entire chapters of a book.

But I also understand you don't know a thing about any of this.

Boy, you ARE stupid. That is a Congressional Hearing.

Dumbass.

 

[westwall]

Last chance: who'd you vote for, you buffoon.

XI!

The constipated one is a chinese stooge.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Last chance: who'd you vote for, you buffoon.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

XI!

The constipated one is a chinese stooge.

Wow! Good for you! You know the name of the President of China!

How did YOU know that?

Needless to say, I'm impressed. I thought you were really, REALLY stupid.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Boy, you ARE stupid. That is a Congressional Hearing.

Dumbass.

LOL. You don't even know what COPYRIGHT is????

LOL

 

[westwall]

LOL. You don't even know what COPYRIGHT is????

LOL

Of course I know what Copyright is, dumbass. CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, and the reports associated with them are PUBLIC RECORD.

They BELONG TO THE PEOPLE.


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Of course I know what Copyright is, dumbass. CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, and the reports associated with them are PUBLIC RECORD.

They BELONG TO THE PEOPLE.


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

not always.

"Works of the U.S. federal government are generally not protected by copyright in the United States and are automatically in the public domain (17USC§ 105); however, there are numerous exceptions and refinements to this rule."

Are government documents copyrighted? - GIO

govtinfo.libanswers.com

 

[fncceo]

Only a hateful screeching fool will fail to acknowledge when the earth's hottest years occurred.

I may not be an expert on The Scientific Method ... but, I'm reasonably certain one of the steps in it isn't calling anyone who disagrees with you names.

Science isn't about fighting ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I may not be an expert on The Scientific Method ... but, I'm reasonably certain one of the steps in it isn't calling anyone who disagrees with you names.

Science isn't about fighting ...

Good point...unfortunately if you meet scientists you find that "fighting" is very much something they value. Newton picked fights with everyone. I watched two grown men hurl insults at each other during my wife's thesis defense USING HER AS THE PAWN just to take a whack at each other.

Scientists fight. They shouldn't but they are human.

 

[fncceo]

Good point...unfortunately if you meet scientists you find that "fighting" is very much something they value. Newton picked fights with everyone. I watched two grown men hurl insults at each other during my wife's thesis defense USING HER AS THE PAWN just to take a whack at each other.

Scientists fight. They shouldn't but they are human.

If you need to fight to advance your argument ... you don't have much of an argument.

And Newton, was just a jerk.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

If you need to fight to advance your argument ... you don't have much of an argument.

And Newton, was just a jerk.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I totally agree. Just that science DOES involve a lot of nasty fighting from time to time. The limits of human discipline are stretched sometimes.

 

[westwall]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I totally agree. Just that science DOES involve a lot of nasty fighting from time to time. The limits of human discipline are stretched sometimes.

Here you go, a bonifide genius, pay attention to what he says.

CLOSE ATTENTION.

 

[fncceo]

Feynman also said, but I can't find the actual quote...

If you can't explain something to a lay person, you don't understand it.

 

[westwall]

Feynman also said, but I can't find the actual quote...

If you can't explain something to a lay person, you don't understand it.

Correct. He emphasised simple descriptions to illustrate complex processes. And yes, if couldn't get the idea across to a non scientist, then you truly don't understand it yourself.