On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:20:38 +0100, Chris wrote:

[ re-sending this as messed up the follow-ups ]

On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:

That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.

The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a
long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html

p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate
change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly
man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.

You should also read

https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer
or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe

The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting
that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need
be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others
they seem to be one eyed.

If something is proved then no counterbalancing is required. Just like
you don't need a flat-earther involved when discussing circumnavigating
the globe. The media are responsible for false equivalence by always
trying to show 'balance' when there isn't any.

You are misguided if you equate flatearthers with the dissatisfaction
with IPCC global warming theory.

In the UK we have a media regulator which requires outlets which present
and discuss the news to abide by the rules. The BBC is no different to
any other outlet in the UK be it online, TV or on print. In the above
case the BBC was rightly castigated for allow Nigel Lawson (a known
climate change denier and chairman of the rather shady GWPF) an
unchallenged voice on the Today programme.

I am not sure whether I should be ammused or saddened at your apparent
need to attach descriptors (for guidance?) to a selected group of the
nouns you employ. You should be aware that it makes no difference to
the merits (or otherwise) of what they say, the quality of which you
should assess from first principles.

--- snip ---

I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.

I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at
Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]"

It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used.

How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific
provenance?

Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or
stonethrowing articles.

And yet you're quite happy to throw away evidence as being 'political'
rather than actually engaging with it.

Somebody's opinion is not evidence, especially whan it is quoted in a
digested form by a second person for publication in a third parson'ss
news media.

It is quite obvious that all the climate change denial fora are funded
by the fossil fuel industry and although there is some research
challenging the consensus the vast, vast majority of publicly funded
science is behind and supports the model of human-induced climate change
via the emission of greenhouse gases. Science requires there to be
dissenting voices to make sure the science is sound. Evolution and the
Big Bang were aggressively challenged for a long time before being
accepted, this made the theories stronger and more accurate.

Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.

_Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate
research
is properly peer reviewed.

AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and
peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources.

Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against
so-called denialists or sceptics.

If the science was bulletproof there'd be no problem in publishing it.
Plenty of unpopular/challenging research is published in peer-reviewed
journals all the time. It is my observation that the denialists prefer
not to publish in scientific journals because it is hard. Books are
easier to publish and make more money...

You seem unaware of how hard it is for the people you call denialists
to get published in most of the mainstream journals. Horror stories
abound and if true are quite sufficient to explain why you see so
little of their work.

Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.

I'm not just writing for your benefit.

Even CERN has to be careful how they
present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a
case in point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of
global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction
of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted
so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it
either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low,
suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and
insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant
compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Read the source

http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery

A scientists publication record in isolation gives no indication of its
influence or importance.

Einstein anybody?


My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart
from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years
of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years
of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial
differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as
an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology.

You know that psychology is in the middle of a huge crisis down to
misinterpretation of data and overuse of bad statistical practices, right?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716

If that's your basis for statistical understanding, I recommend you
re-visit modern statistics.

That's ethics, and the criticism applies just as much to medical
research and science in general. Climate research is not exempt.

Apart from that chris has shown
no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He
lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of
ferreting.

I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless
waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others
can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong.

How do you explain the changes shown in

https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/

Two things:
1) the graphs are a mixture US only data or global data. Unsurprisingly
they show different things

As far as I can tell, they are all global data with the exception of
the second graph which is labeled Northern Hemisphere. I am surprised
you didn't look.

2) The quality of data could quite easily be improved over time,
especially with a better network of temperature sensors

Improved sensors in the year 2000 make no difference to data gathered
in 1940. Various documents have been published on the quality of
sensor installations with the first significant publication being

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...t_spring09.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/p2rz7kf

Go on - read it. Its seious stuff and its got data.

Here is a later one
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...rature-trends/
or http://tinyurl.com/y9bb32tq

... which is Anthony Watts 2015 presentation to the American
Geophysical Union.

The use of the work 'fake' is utterly wrong. Modelled or 'imputed' data
is perfectly valid and used across all fields of science - with one
important caveat that hte assumed model is correct. Given the site
doesn't challenge that implies they don't understand what they're
talking about.

They were writing for readers who take for granted that 'the map is
not the territory'.

Plus, it's 50% of 'fake' data is wrong. It's more like 80% - the idiot
forgot the oceans. Except it's not. We now have swathes of satellites
and temperature buoys measuring sea temperatures.

Its not the 'idiot' who forgot it. It may be the persons who created
the various graphs.

The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our
current climate change phenomenon.

How has it been distorted?

I agree, I should have written discounted.

It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already
quoted on
the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept
you seem
poorly familiar with).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in
recent
warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone
depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different
levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a
significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]"

Hoo! That's a put down.

No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.

Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
his recent papers at the link which I have already given you

http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery

Except it's influence has been 'exaggerated' there just isn't enough
energy in cosmic rays to influence Earth's climate so much. Even so it
is now included in global models making them more accurate.

Well, how about this for evidence? Professor Valentina Zharkova
presents evidence for and possible cause of 400 year solar cycle which
matches Maunder (grand) Minimum (1645-1715), Wolf (grand) minimum
(1200), Oort (grand) minimum (1010-1050), Homer (grand) minimum
(800-900 BC); the medieval (900-1200) warm period, Roman (400-10BC)
and other warm periods.
https://mailchi.mp/071cef970071/invi...3?e=99957e2afe
or http://tinyurl.com/ydx6ozhd

For what it is worth, the Russians have never accepted the CO2 based
IPCC theory but increasingly strongly have been pointing their finger
at the sun.

--- snip ---
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens