1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainMichael Bastache with a B.A. in political science from the University of Portland and no peer-reviewed publications on the subject? He writes an opinion column in the internet version of a supermarket tabloid magazine. Why do you trust his opinion? Why should we trust his opinion and how does his opinion supersede the opinion of climate scientists (or any scientist)? Does it seem a bit irresponsible to trust a 20 -something poly sci major with no scientific background to answer major questions about our planets health?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/07/new-satellite-data-still-shows-less-global-warming-than-climate-models/
More importantly what is the evidence to support what he writes? It looks like he's quoting the aforementioned Dr. Roy Spencer who likes making graphs without labels or statistics. He's quoted in this article as saying "...we have a paper in peer review.." which I'd like to read but the paper apparently never came out. Making firm conclusions about "data" in scientific studies that never see the light of day isn't how good science is done.
Originally posted by @wildgrassWhat he said.
Michael Bastache with a B.A. in political science from the University of Portland and no peer-reviewed publications on the subject? He writes an opinion column in the internet version of a supermarket tabloid magazine. Why do you trust his opinion? Why should we trust his opinion and how does his opinion supersede the opinion of climate scientists (or any ...[text shortened]... out "data" in scientific studies that never see the light of day isn't how good science is done.
Originally posted by @wildgrassThe data is there but that is not good enough? What if it was the other way around, would that satisfy you or do you insist on both every time?
Michael Bastache with a B.A. in political science from the University of Portland and no peer-reviewed publications on the subject? He writes an opinion column in the internet version of a supermarket tabloid magazine. Why do you trust his opinion? Why should we trust his opinion and how does his opinion supersede the opinion of climate scientists (or any ...[text shortened]... out "data" in scientific studies that never see the light of day isn't how good science is done.
If you can present satellite data to prove climate models are accurate I suggest you do that. I don't think you will be able to meet your own criteria, but go ahead and give it a try. I think it is your turn to do that and I will do the nitpicking for a change.
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainNo, the data is not there and even you must know that article was garbage propaganda. Possibly the manuscript is still under review, and we can look at the data when it's available.
The data is there but that is not good enough?
Where is the actual information source that you used to draw the conclusion that climate models don't accurately predict anthropogenic global warming?
Can we discuss real science now?
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22315
Why is the group of Swiss climatologists (with a combined 50 peer-reviewed articles) wrong, but your political shill (with no scientific background and no data to support his claim) is right?
Originally posted by @wildgrassThe data is there in a link provided. Look for the words "published in a recent study" and click onto it. Plenty of data.
No, the data is not there and even you must know that article was garbage propaganda. Possibly the manuscript is still under review, and we can look at the data when it's available.
Where is the actual information source that you used to draw the conclusion that climate models don't accurately predict anthropogenic global warming?
Can we discuss rea ...[text shortened]... your political shill (with no scientific background and no data to support his claim) is right?
All you asked for was the data, not who referenced you to it. I met your criteria and now you try to move the goal post. Accept that I gave you what you asked for.
Originally posted by @metal-brainNo. There is nothing in that data that says anything remotely close to what you or Mike Bastasche says.
Accept that I gave you what you asked for.
Originally posted by @wildgrassAre you saying the data is fabricated? Explain exactly what you do mean.
No. There is nothing in that data that says anything remotely close to what you or Mike Bastasche says.
I think you are just denying the data for the sake of denial and nothing else. I gave you what you asked for and now you are resorting to lying rather than admitting I met your criteria.
Originally posted by @metal-brainTeach me. What does your data show?
Are you saying the data is fabricated? Explain exactly what you do mean.
I think you are just denying the data for the sake of denial and nothing else. I gave you what you asked for and now you are resorting to lying rather than admitting I met your criteria.
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainLast paragraph of the paper:
Are you saying the data is fabricated? Explain exactly what you do mean.
I think you are just denying the data for the sake of denial and nothing else. I gave you what you asked for and now you are resorting to lying rather than admitting I met your criteria.
"The resulting dataset shows more warming than the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998, and more warming than similar datasets developed by UAH, more warming than homogenized radiosonde datasets, but less warming than would be expected from satellite estimates of water vapor trend. These results suggest that at least some of the datasets studied still contain unresolved errors. For the TLT dataset that is the focus of this paper, the largest remaining problems are related to the NOAA-09 target factor, the diurnal adjustments applied, and the possibility of spurious calibration drift in one or more satellites. Possible calibration drift in NOAA-15 contributes to two of the important choice impacts in Table 7, the MSU/AMSU overlap, and the removal of NOAA-15 data after 2011. Since other AMSU channels show evidence of drifting measurement frequencies (Lu and Bell 2014; Zou and Wang 2011), it is important to perform future research to detect or rule out such changes for the MSU and AMSU measurements used here."
Note the part where it says there are unknown errors? Did you actually read this paper you yourself linked?
The second paragraph from the page you directly linked:
"The new updates, published in a recent study, increased the post-1998 warming trend 140 percent for the Remote Sensing System (RSS) satellite temperature database. Now, RSS shows more global warming than surface temperature records."
In other words, you read ONLY the first paragraph that says 40% less bla bla bla, and nothing else.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeRetired? Come on, he was a software engineer on Apollo, I KNEW Apollo, I was a minor tech on Apollo tracking and timing, so his expertise was programming computers the level of the Commodore 64. This is supposed to make him a climate expert? He is closer to dying than just retired. You have to do better than that if you want to be believed.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-alarmists-may-inherit-the-wind-1522605526?shareToken=stb6d256fd06a545ca9a6def4124b2ca75&reflink=article_email_share
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/11/22/climate-change-alarmism-is-garbage-in-garbage-out-retired-nasa-physicist-says/
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseIs this better?
Retired? Come on, he was a software engineer on Apollo, I KNEW Apollo, I was a minor tech on Apollo tracking and timing, so his expertise was programming computers the level of the Commodore 64. This is supposed to make him a climate expert? He is closer to dying than just retired. You have to do better than that if you want to be believed.
http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2009/08/everybody-talks-about-weather.html
Originally posted by @lemon-limeEr, this is a supporting argument?
Is this better?
http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2009/08/everybody-talks-about-weather.html
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseEr, no... was your inquiry a serious question?
Er, this is a supporting argument?
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseYou have to do better than that if you want to be believed.
Retired? Come on, he was a software engineer on Apollo, I KNEW Apollo, I was a minor tech on Apollo tracking and timing, so his expertise was programming computers the level of the Commodore 64. This is supposed to make him a climate expert? He is closer to dying than just retired. You have to do better than that if you want to be believed.
Are you suggesting the only purpose for debating global warming is to "be believed"? Wanting to "be believed" is a political endgame goal... please tell me you know the difference between politics and science.