Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[Copernicus]

Your explanation of the global consensus of climate scientists regarding AGW is that there is some kind of international conspiracy to fake their conclusions out of fear that they will lose their incomes...

No, that's not it.

Fair enough. Tell me how your position differs from the way I described it. I don't want to misrepresent what your real position is. I just expressed how it appeared to me.

 

[sayak83]

So you're saying that Morner was lying, despite him having no motive to do so and you having no explanation for why the "correction" was the same as the cherry-picked Hong Kong tide data?

There was no cherry picking. The entire global tidal data and many other types of data sets were used including, most importantly the new satellite data sets. He is not telling the truth. I do not have any interest on figuring out why. I am not a psychologist or a criminal investigator. I simply understand a simple idea.
Suppose you have been weighing yourself in a weighing machine for a few years. Then you buy a new weighing machine. The readings of the new machine are 5% different from the old one. You buy 5 other weighing machines, and all the new weighing machines give consistent results and deviate from the old one you were using by 5%. Then, the rational thing to do, is to trust the 6 new machines all giving consistent results, investigate and discover the error that was causing the old machine to deviate, and then correct that error in your previous weight records taken from the older machine. This is what was done.

 

[Ebionite]

There was no cherry picking.

How do you know that?

 

[sayak83]

How do you know that?

I can read the papers and understand the logic and the reason. I have extensive experience in how instrumentation calibration and associated corrections usually happen. These kinds of improvements, error detection and reprocessing is routine in any instrumentation field in various Engg and science disciplines....be it satellite telemetry, temperature measurements through remote or in-situ sensors, chemical species concentration measurements through in-situ or remote imaging techniques or astronomical detectors (like instruments on board James Webb etc). The groups here are working with excellent transparency, presenting all the calibration techniques, documenting the unprocessed and reprocessed results, quantifying the uncertainty and opening up the entire data set. Frankly very few other technological disciplines in engineering have followed such excellent data and method transparency as I am seeing here. Just to provide a recent example, the accuracy of temperature sensors in presence of strong electromagnetic fields is poorly understood and many of the company making such temperature sensors for critical applications are not providing the data for us to check this.

So anybody who has an objection and is NOT writing actual papers to show why his version is more correct, and is instead giving interviews, creating fake journals and just making allegations in public forums is being dishonest.

This paper below goes into details on how the inconsistency was detected. You will be able to read the abstract only...but even in that you will see that much much more than few cherry picked tide gauge data were used
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ful...12.718226?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab

 

[Ebionite]

I can read the papers and understand the logic and the reason.

Awesome. Let me know when you have some actual facts that support your accusation.

 

[sayak83]

Awesome. Let me know when you have some actual facts that support your accusation.

The facts are already presented in the paper that was linked showing an huge set of different types of data that were used. Maybe read that before accusing others of not justifying their claims?

 

[Ebionite]

The facts are already presented in the paper that was linked showing an huge set of different types of data that were used.

How is that data relevant to the claim made by Morner that the IPCC only chose a single record from six Hong Kong tide gauges?

Maybe read that before accusing others of not justifying their claims?

Why do you think that I accused you of not justifying your claim?

 

[sayak83]

How is that data relevant to the claim made by Morner that the IPCC only chose a single record from six tide Hong Kong gauges?


Why do you think I accused you of not justifying your claim?

Because he has not proivided any evidence that they did and I failed to find any evidence in the entire satellite correction literature set that anything like that has been done.
This Morner is accusing that cherry picked data was used (a single record of 6 tide gauges). Let him show this. He is the one accusing, and you are the one claiming he is right. Show the evidence then.
Your accusation. Your turn to back it up now.

 

[Ebionite]

Because he has not proivided any evidence that they did and I failed to find any evidence in the entire satellite correction literature set that anything like that has been done.

Morner is an expert witness. Expert opinions are a form of evidence.

Your failure to find relevant documentation obviously adds nothing to your argument that Morner is lying.
So, you have nothing to support your accusation against Morner.

 

[sayak83]

Morner is an expert witness. Expert opinions are a form of evidence.

Your failure to find relevant documentation obviously adds nothing to your argument that Morner is lying.
So, you have nothing to support your accusation against Morner.

Unfortunately for you, in science one's ability to provide data backing your argument is what matters, unevidenced testimony does not. Otherwise, the testimony of Einstein regarding the impossibility of quantum mechanics as a fundamental theory of matter would have carried the day. You can bring 10,000 Nobel laureates as expert witness testimony and it would matter not a single bit until you are able to provide evidential data backing that testimony.
So...until Morner provides the data and evidence showing the scientists associated with the sea level analysis cherry picked data and committed scientific fraud (which is what such an action will be), his unevidenced accusations are just that....baseless and unevidenced.

Back up your accusations with evidence.

 

[Yerda]

The cult modus operandi is to own the interpretation. Whenever those interpreting the data are picking up a paycheck from those who have an interest in what the interpretation is, then that is when you have a problem.

Aye, the people at Shell and BP had a real strong interest in "the interpretation". So strong was their motivation they buried their own studies for decades...

It's the laws of physics not the Voynich manuscript.

 

[exchemist]

Humanism is rooted in the error of atheism. It's relevant because theism is the paradigm that completes with that of secular government. Atheism is symbolised by Babylon, which was identified with the church of Rome. The U.N. adopted the laurel wreath of Rome as it's symbol, and the IPCC is of course part of the U.N.

The human rights of the U.N. exist in opposition to the natural rights of the common law of England, which are associated with deity. One of these is the natural right to life, which is not subject to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

1. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

A milestone document in the history of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It has been translated into over 500 languages.

www.un.org

This really is barking mad.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The cult modus operandi is to own the interpretation. Whenever those interpreting the data are picking up a paycheck from those who have an interest in what the interpretation is, then that is when you have a problem.

I wrote, "The data supporting AGW is robust and beyond reasonable doubt for those who can interpret it" and that was your response. Do you think it addressed my comment? I don't. I can interpret the data directly. I can tell what it reveals and predicts. You're the one in a cult, the one called climate denialism.

But do you know what? I'm perfectly content with that.

Let me ask you this: Is it possible for you to suffer adverse consequences if you're wrong? If your answer is no, then it doesn't matter what you believe. I think the answer is yes. The last people to figure out what's happening will lose much of their wealth. Can you imagine how that happens to them?

you're not one-sided in that at all

He wrote, "That's why we don't trust those who work for fossil fuel companies, or republicans who are financed by fossil fuel companies." How many sides do you think he should take on that? Incidentally, I agree 100%. I have no interest in what either have to say, both being continually caught lying, like Trump, and Fox News.

Morner is an expert witness. Expert opinions are a form of evidence.

So was Behe. His opinions were shredded at trial. That's evidence, too.

 

[F1fan]

And you're not one-sided in that at all, right?

I'm on the side of caution. I'm on the side that defers to expertise and doesn't hold an ideological position against it. I'm on the side of a future that is not seeing more and more severe weather that ends up costing us all in more insurance costs, and time lsot due to dealing with damage. I'm on the side of caring for younger generations having some degree of a stable environment to live and enjoy life. I'm on the side of being accountable for dependence on fossil fuels and how that contributes to a warming planet. I'm on the side of creating more renewables so we can lower energy costs. So you see, I'm on many sides.

 

[Ebionite]

Unfortunately for you, in science one's ability to provide data backing your argument is what matters, unevidenced testimony does not.

The scientific domain is inappropriate for the questions of ethics that follow from an accusation of lying.

 

[Ebionite]

It's the laws of physics not the Voynich manuscript.

The laws of physics are insufficient to describe the ideological motivations of the IPCC

 

[Ebionite]

This really is barking mad.

A predictable response within the context of the religious prejudice of the United Nations.

 

[Ebionite]

I wrote, "The data supporting AGW is robust and beyond reasonable doubt for those who can interpret it" and that was your response. Do you think it addressed my comment?

The issue was interpretation. You didn't address that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The issue was interpretation. You didn't address that.

Too bad that you do not understand the concept of evidence. It is possible for one side to have all of the evidence. "Interpretation" cannot change that fact.

 

[Ebionite]

I'm on the side of caution. I'm on the side that defers to expertise and doesn't hold an ideological position against it.

So you would defer to Molnar's expertise?