Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[ron johnson]

Is there any doubt especially after ron's fisking salad on the previous page that he's as mad as a bag full of cats?

Saying something is true doesn't make it true. You need to provide evidence, and nothing in your post makes me look "as mad as a bag full of cats". I thought you might have learned that since you STILL can't respond to this:

If its not just one blog post about Heller, where are the others? How about instead of you now claiming that Heller's "so called evidence was laughable", you go back and present what is laughable about it.

If Heller's evidence was laughable, why can you not tell me why?

Ron's response contains yet another endless stream of bullshit. Why bother going through all of it though when ron can't even get his first argument right:



The earliest start date for which records are available in Australia dates back to the 1840s. There are many more stations and earlier or later start dates for ron's heller to choose from but then his scam falls apart.

Like most of your responses to me, you don't go through it all because you have no answer to it all. I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that the graph is selected for stations that are active from pre 1890 - today so that we can look at a long term level playing field. If there were stations active in 1840, but no longer active today, it is irrelevant. The important catch is the 1885-1940 period which shows average max temperatures comparable to today.

If you include later stations, but those stations are located in warmer areas, it creates a warming bias. This analysis shows that is what is happening in the ACORN data set: http://joannenova.com.au/2019/11/raw...e-world-war-i/

Australia’s BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) has hundreds of temperature recording sites but ron's heller chose just 25. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of statistics, or just intuitively, knows by limiting the datatset and choosing small spatial scales you can pick stations to show two opposite different conclusions. All heller has to do is use a simple algorithm to go through the station data to cherry pick examples that support his false narrative.

And anyone knows that if you add site locations in a warmer climate to a data set, there will be a warming bias in the data. Anyone knows it's important to have a level playing field when comparing data.

In reality, statistical analysis can evaluate the fidelity of the data but when has that mattered to conspiracy theorists like ron?

The bottom line is any adjustment biases whether warming or cooling mostly cancel each other out. This is what the daily high temperature trend for Australia actually looks like:

Attachment 319767

You got a statistical analysis of the data? Here's a few more:

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/10/the...very-hot-days/
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/10/who...-colder-again/
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/11/who...-in-australia/

[ron johnson]

Come on, I really want to see your side. Gimme the pitch!

There is nothing unprecedented about our current climate in the context of the period of human civilization. There is no consensus on how much of the current warming humans are responsible for or how dangerous it is. Extreme weather events are not getting worse. The media coverage of this topic is a joke.

[ron johnson]

Deniers like ron can't win on the science so they attempt to confound by manufacturing controversy.

You can just pick a number. It all depends on where ron's at in his progression:

1) The planet isn’t warming, it's a conspiracy, but 2) Even if it is warming, it’s caused by the solar maximum, but 3) Even if it is warming and caused by people, the effects are unimportant, but 4) Even if it is warming, caused by people, and serious, the effects are positive, but 5) Even if it is warming, caused by people, serious, and bad, the effects are impossible to stop, but 6) Even if it is warming, caused by people, serious, bad, and possible to mitigate, it’s too costly for the world to manage, but 7) Even if it is warming, caused by people, serious, bad, alleviable, and economically feasible, other countries won’t cooperate, and 8) Even if it is warming, caused by humans, serious, bad, fixable, economically feasible, and possible to coordinate, domestic politics means it’s still impossible to solve.*

*Besides 9) what about Greta and scaring children, Ocasio eats babies, plastic straws... which by rule is also 1.5), 2.5), 3.5), 4.5), 5.5), 6.5), 7.5), 8.5), 9.5)

You would know what it's like to not be able to win on science....

I don't agree with any of your claims other than it being financially unfeasible for the world to stomach with our current tech.

[rideit]

There is nothing unprecedented about our current climate in the context of the period of human civilization. There is no consensus on how much of the current warming humans are responsible for or how dangerous it is. Extreme weather events are not getting worse. The media coverage of this topic is a joke.

So, your saying inaction is the best strategy?

[Kenny Satch]

There is nothing unprecedented about our current climate in the context of the period of human civilization.
The media coverage of this topic is a joke.

He talks about the religion of green groups and the shift to Marxism. He goes on to explain how coal help reforestation and establishing the middle-class. I know sound weird but he makes interesting observation as to why. Never have I listened to this side of the discussion. Worth watching IMO

[XXX-er]

a buddy was pointing out how climate is affecting Wine ... the grape does not lie

[Kenny Satch]

a buddy was pointing out how climate is affecting Wine ... the grape does not lie

The more the grape struggles the better the wine. That's be happening for centuries. If they are dying then that something else

[MultiVerse]

Why bother refuting ron's disinformation when he does such a good job doing it himself from one day to the next. Today ron wrote:

And anyone knows that if you add site locations in a warmer climate to a data set, there will be a warming bias in the data. Anyone knows it's important to have a level playing field when comparing data.

And over the past couple of days he's been trying to defend this argument:

Australia's land temperature has had no warming since the late 1800's

Forget the fact there are more are more than 25 long running sites in Australia for comparison, the contradiction is easy enough to spot. Yesterday ron argued there's no warming in Australia. Today ron argues you have to use cherry-picked sites because otherwise (in a nutshell) a "warmer climate" will expose the lie.




FWIW, the fact is even the raw data shows 2018/2019 was the hottest summer on record in Australia. So ron and heller and all the other conspiracy theorists can spread FUD about the BOM, but when even the raw data shows Australia is warming, and that includes high temperature anomalies, then their arguments become hopelessly outdated.

[WMD]

There is nothing unprecedented about our current climate in the context of the period of human civilization. There is no consensus on how much of the current warming humans are responsible for or how dangerous it is. Extreme weather events are not getting worse. The media coverage of this topic is a joke.

Go fuck yourself. All of this is lies.

Except the part about media coverage. That is a joke. The media totally downplays the climate crisis. It should be front page, first story, every day.

Your bullshit is destroying my kids' future.

[MultiVerse]

He talks about the religion of green groups and the shift to Marxism. He goes on to explain how coal help reforestation and establishing the middle-class. I know sound weird but he makes interesting observation as to why. Never have I listened to this side of the discussion. Worth watching IMO

Your video was posted back in 2014. So what? The answer is by the end of 2014 it becomes hopelessly outdated.

Globally 19 of the 20 overall warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the six hottest-ever years were 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Climate and temperature are affected by a lot of factors but there are no other factors such as El Niño, volcanoes, or periodic variations in solar activity (which is small relative to total solar output) that account for the long term increasing temperature trend other than greenhouse gases.

Temperature oscillates up and down from year-to-year due to those other factors but the bottom line is greenhouse gasses are the dominate factors in the long term warming trend.

The fact is, this is not natural:

[rideit]

The hockey stick is a liberal myth!

[MultiVerse]

The hockey stick is a liberal myth!

Heh, ron and his cohort call it a conspiracy. But the reality is scientists aren’t inventing global warming through adjustments. They’re just being thorough.

All anyone needs to know is NASA, NOAA, the UK, and Japan produce independent datasets using independent methods that are in close agreement more or less confirming each others approach. They are either all engaged in a massive conspiracy that ron's source tony has uncovered or decades of effort involving thousands upon thousands of hours has produced datasets that do a good job tracking temperature.


So the trick ron's conspiracy mongers use is they say you have find stations that have "never really changed." But even stations that have been in continuous operation have changed methods of observing, which can have a profound effect. Stations have also changed instruments, including the switch from liquid-in-glass thermometers to max/min temperature sensors (MMTS). The people at NOAA do their best to account for all these factors. Of course they haven’t got it perfect, but their efforts represent the best that can be done with present knowledge, based on decades of analysis and experience.

Tony Heller (and joannenova et. al.) do none of this. Rather, they consistently accuses those who do of perpetrating a fraud.

The point is that if you ignore the issues altogether, your answer will be wrong.



If anyone wants to read about instrument calibration, adjusting for location or equipment changes, observation times in older systems, or homogenization algorithms, etc.:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016...perature-data/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08...-i-sucker-you/
https://theconversation.com/no-the-b...her-data-31009

[ex-powderbroker]

There is nothing unprecedented about our current climate in the context of the period of human civilization. There is no consensus on how much of the current warming humans are responsible for or how dangerous it is. Extreme weather events are not getting worse. The media coverage of this topic is a joke.

let’s say that the current climate had been seen before. what about the rate of change, it seems pretty dramatic, no? where will it end up if it is not tempered?

consensus - this seems to be a side issue because everyone agrees that the climate is changing, maybe there are shades of grey between how fast? can you show one credible paper that shows that we are cooling, for instance?

weather isn’t climate, and it’s a lot harder to figure out whether hurricanes are stronger now compared to something easy, like a lake in nj that used to be farmed for ice in 3x3 blocks before refrigeration doesn’t freeze anymore, etc.

if it’s your personal mission to camp in this thread and argue with everyone, are there other things you like to sit on a wildly contrarian side and debate as well?

[XXX-er]

The more the grape struggles the better the wine. That's be happening for centuries. If they are dying then that something else

they aren't struggling its the opposite the grape is ripening too fast, also certain grapes aren't working in areas that they always did which is screwed up if you can only grow grapes of a certain type in a region eg champagne in champagne region Burgundy in burgundy and last season it was too warm to make ice wine

[ron johnson]

Why bother refuting ron's disinformation when he does such a good job doing it himself from one day to the next. Today ron wrote:



And over the past couple of days he's been trying to defend this argument:

Congrats, you refuted nothing here. Current Australian stations active pre 1890 show no increase in average maximum temperatures. A quote of me explaining how adding newer stations in hotter locales can distort the data refutes nothing.

Forget the fact there are more are more than 25 long running sites in Australia for comparison, the contradiction is easy enough to spot. Yesterday ron argued there's no warming in Australia. Today ron argues you have to use cherry-picked sites because otherwise (in a nutshell) a "warmer climate" will expose the lie.

You are claiming there are more than 25 long running sites in Australia, where is your evidence of this? There is nothing cherry picking about selecting for the longest most consistent record. If there actually are more than the 25 locations selected in Heller's graph then I'll cede the argument. Where is the graph?

FWIW, the fact is even the raw data shows 2018/2019 was the hottest summer on record in Australia. So ron and heller and all the other conspiracy theorists can spread FUD about the BOM, but when even the raw data shows Australia is warming, and that includes high temperature anomalies, then their arguments become hopelessly outdated.

Where do you see this? Is it now .1'C warmer than 1901 despite that big CO2 increase and adding stations in warmer climates?

[ron johnson]

Go fuck yourself. All of this is lies.

Except the part about media coverage. That is a joke. The media totally downplays the climate crisis. It should be front page, first story, every day.

Your bullshit is destroying my kids' future.

None of that is a lie, try refuting it.

[ron johnson]

Your video was posted back in 2014. So what? The answer is by the end of 2014 it becomes hopelessly outdated.

Globally 19 of the 20 overall warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the six hottest-ever years were 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Climate and temperature are affected by a lot of factors but there are no other factors such as El Niño, volcanoes, or periodic variations in solar activity (which is small relative to total solar output) that account for the long term increasing temperature trend other than greenhouse gases.

Temperature oscillates up and down from year-to-year due to those other factors but the bottom line is greenhouse gasses are the dominate factors in the long term warming trend.

The fact is, this is not natural:

Wow, the fake graph czar posts the holy grail of fake graphs.

It's also great hubris to claim that there is certainty that there are no other possible factors to account for the warming.

[rideit]

Occam’s razor doesn’t cut you, apparently.

[ron johnson]

Heh, ron and his cohort call it a conspiracy. But the reality is scientists aren’t inventing global warming through adjustments. They’re just being thorough.

All anyone needs to know is NASA, NOAA, the UK, and Japan produce independent datasets using independent methods that are in close agreement more or less confirming each others approach. They are either all engaged in a massive conspiracy that ron's source tony has uncovered or decades of effort involving thousands upon thousands of hours has produced datasets that do a good job tracking temperature.

They are not independent, they use the same data.

So the trick ron's conspiracy mongers use is they say you have find stations that have "never really changed." But even stations that have been in continuous operation have changed methods of observing, which can have a profound effect. Stations have also changed instruments, including the switch from liquid-in-glass thermometers to max/min temperature sensors (MMTS). The people at NOAA do their best to account for all these factors. Of course they haven’t got it perfect, but their efforts represent the best that can be done with present knowledge, based on decades of analysis and experience.

Tony Heller (and joannenova et. al.) do none of this. Rather, they consistently accuses those who do of perpetrating a fraud.

The point is that if you ignore the issues altogether, your answer will be wrong.



If anyone wants to read about instrument calibration, adjusting for location or equipment changes, observation times in older systems, or homogenization algorithms, etc.:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016...perature-data/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08...-i-sucker-you/
https://theconversation.com/no-the-b...her-data-31009

Is it safe to say that you are one of the minority who trust government? You are blindly trusting these institutions even though their adjustments are not transparent and analysis shows their reasoning doesn't make sense:






And we know these leading scientists have no qualms about fudging data:

[ron johnson]

let’s say that the current climate had been seen before. what about the rate of change, it seems pretty dramatic, no? where will it end up if it is not tempered?

There is nothing exceptional about the rate of change.

consensus - this seems to be a side issue because everyone agrees that the climate is changing, maybe there are shades of grey between how fast? can you show one credible paper that shows that we are cooling, for instance?

I've never claimed we are cooling. We have been warming for 150 years, well before we started emitting CO2.

weather isn’t climate, and it’s a lot harder to figure out whether hurricanes are stronger now compared to something easy, like a lake in nj that used to be farmed for ice in 3x3 blocks before refrigeration doesn’t freeze anymore, etc.

It's not hard to figure out whether hurricanes are stronger.

if it’s your personal mission to camp in this thread and argue with everyone, are there other things you like to sit on a wildly contrarian side and debate as well?

I have a contrarian perspective on veganism where I don't think any of the health, ethics, and environmental reasons for veganism hold up to scrutiny. But I don't debate anyone on it.

[ex-powderbroker]

There is nothing exceptional about the rate of change.

It seems like you've made up your mind, the books are cooked even though NASA, NOAA, and the sea and 97 percent of peer reviewed studies all disagree.


where do you live?

[ron johnson]

It seems like you've made up your mind, the books are cooked even though NASA, NOAA, and the sea and 97 percent of peer reviewed studies all disagree.


where do you live?

Read the thread if you are interested, it's all been covered.

Live in Tahoe.

[rideit]

Living in Tahoe and not accepting climate change is a special kind of stupid.

[ron johnson]

Living in Tahoe and not accepting climate change is a special kind of stupid.

It takes a special kind of stupid to think that our short lifetimes and own perceptions can detect lasting changes in a constantly changing climate. Remember the guy from Iowa complaining about how bad the climate was getting when the data showed the opposite?

Besides that, not much has changed here. If global warming was a concept no one had heard of, no one here would think something unusual was happening.

[uglymoney]

RJ is still here telling us the good night night fairy tales he heard at Americans For Prosperity summer camp.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk