|
Post by Ratty on Nov 8, 2019 12:54:51 GMT
Now you might think that the new models would be better than the old ones. This is mathematical modelling 101: if a model doesn’t fit well with the data, you improve the model to make it fit better. But such elementary logic doesn’t apply in the field of climate science.New Climate Models - Even More Wrong
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 14, 2019 19:10:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 14, 2019 20:46:19 GMT
Now you might think that the new models would be better than the old ones. This is mathematical modelling 101: if a model doesn’t fit well with the data, you improve the model to make it fit better. But such elementary logic doesn’t apply in the field of climate science.New Climate Models - Even More Wrong My 12 gauge has a better pattern than that.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 15, 2019 1:27:41 GMT
Now you might think that the new models would be better than the old ones. This is mathematical modelling 101: if a model doesn’t fit well with the data, you improve the model to make it fit better. But such elementary logic doesn’t apply in the field of climate science.New Climate Models - Even More Wrong My 12 gauge has a better pattern than that.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 15, 2019 1:38:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 15, 2019 18:55:53 GMT
"WINNING: EPA science advisers reject EPA staff particulate matter claims Here is the draft letter from the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee concerning the EPA staff’s most recent junk science-based assessment of the health effects of air borne particulate matter. A majority of the CASAC rejected the EPA staff’s claims that PM is scientifically associated with premature mortality and other health effects."junkscience.com/2019/11/winning-epa-science-advisers-reject-epa-staff-particulate-matter-claims
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 15, 2019 19:01:30 GMT
and same noted elsewhere Ratty???
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 16, 2019 5:00:23 GMT
and same noted elsewhere
Ratty??? There are several researchers who look into the BoM's 'adjustments' ... it's a travesty: Read a page or two of kenskingdom. The formatting here will not be good but you may get the gist about ACORN-SAT 2's adjustments: It doesn't get better.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 16, 2019 11:11:11 GMT
What is missing from climate 'science' is governance.
Once a dataset is put under governance then any change has to be documented with the reason why it needs to be changed (itself documented and approved) and the person carrying out the amendment would be documented and an approving official would also be documented both by name with a date. As your document shows there are only 112 stations in the database so governance is not a huge task. But that governance provides accountability which like ethics is sorely lacking in climate 'science' at all levels.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 16, 2019 12:12:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 16, 2019 12:18:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 16, 2019 12:46:54 GMT
What is missing from climate 'science' is governance. Once a dataset is put under governance then any change has to be documented with the reason why it needs to be changed (itself documented and approved) and the person carrying out the amendment would be documented and an approving official would also be documented both by name with a date. As your document shows there are only 112 stations in the database so governance is not a huge task. But that governance provides accountability which like ethics is sorely lacking in climate 'science' at all levels. .... but, but, but ..... the scary reports would be further between and M&M could be out of business.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 19, 2019 11:24:30 GMT
"MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: Believing CO2 controls the climate ‘is pretty close to believing in magic’
Lindzen: "Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure." "The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.""www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/01/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-believing-co2-controls-the-climate-is-pretty-close-to-believing-in-magic/
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 20, 2019 15:50:25 GMT
"If you’d asked me at the time of Climategate whether I’d still be writing about this stuff ten years hence I would have said: ‘No! God, no! The caravan will have moved on by then.’ But it hasn’t, has it? Instead it has accumulated more baggage, more freeloaders. In fact, by some bizarre inversion of logic, the less and less credible the evidence for the great global warming scare, the bigger and noisier and more powerful the Climate Industrial Complex has grown."www.spectator.co.uk/2019/11/my-finest-hour/
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 20, 2019 16:06:04 GMT
"If you’d asked me at the time of Climategate whether I’d still be writing about this stuff ten years hence I would have said: ‘No! God, no! The caravan will have moved on by then.’ But it hasn’t, has it? Instead it has accumulated more baggage, more freeloaders. In fact, by some bizarre inversion of logic, the less and less credible the evidence for the great global warming scare, the bigger and noisier and more powerful the Climate Industrial Complex has grown."www.spectator.co.uk/2019/11/my-finest-hour/ Should we start an Implosion Poll? Right now, the struggle against this nonsense seems pretty hopeless. But we sceptics do have at least two things on our side – time and economics. Time is doing us a favour by showing that none of the alarmists’ doomsday predictions are coming to pass. Economics – from the blackouts in South Australia caused by excessive reliance on renewables (aka unreliables) to the current riots and demonstrations taking place from France and the Netherlands to Chile over their governments’ green policies – suggest that common sense will prevail in the end. Bloody hell, though – taking it’s time, isn’t it?
|
|