A real turning point for me on this climate shenaniganry is years ago I came across an article that stated triumphantly that although the climate deniers had for years pointed to satellite data as showing no warming that now they have run the data through their newest pairwise homogeneity software and it shows warming.
So surface stations show no warming and you run it through PH to remove "bias" and it shows warming. Satellites show no warming and you run it through PH to remove "bias" and it shows warming. Fucking tree ring show no warming and you run it through PH to remove "bias" and it shows warming. If the bias in three completely different measurements all happen to match somehow maybe the bias isn't actually in the measurements.
My magic model tell me the world is going to end if we don't do anything by 2000... I meant 2005... 2010... 2020... ten years from whenever now is... shut up racist.
Let's say you have a surface station that takes the high and low temp every day, and someone builds a building across the street and now the ground around the station gets a little more shade so the high temp on average drops 0.1 degree C for that station. That's an inhomogeneity, so you run it through a pairwise homogeneity algorithm and bingo bango it automatically removes the inhomogeneity even if you don't know about it. And if that seems questionable, don't worry, the code is open source and you can check the 10s of thousands of lines of spaghetti FORTRAN yourself.
It reminds me of the coding of Neil Fergusson - a European epidemiologist who always predicted 100x more deaths than occurs…. For every pandemic since 2000s.
He promised he would open source his code following covid scrutiny- and it has thousands of lines of spaghetti code that had obviously been massages and manipulation for decades.
It'd only take about a $1 gas tax to pay for removing CO2 from cars directly from the air, and most of that cost is energy, which could be cheap and clean from nuclear (if we stopped with the nimby crap).
So this is a totally possible solution, but IPCC doesn't even look into it or model the cost or anything. Machines added the CO2, but mechanical removal is completely ignored as a solution. Same with geoengineering, which climate doomers say is "too risky" while saying it's the end times unless we completely overhaul all of industry.
IPCC report is not written by rational people, it's a report by a political thinktank pretending to be science.
You should look at Dr. Roy Spencer's blog. The man knows what he's talking about; but every single time he makes a new post, the thread comments quickly deteriorates into absurdity and name calling over which data points are and are not reliable.
I think a lot of it comes from shills who obfuscate facts and flat out lie to push the narrative that everything is mankind's fault.
A real turning point for me on this climate shenaniganry is years ago I came across an article that stated triumphantly that although the climate deniers had for years pointed to satellite data as showing no warming that now they have run the data through their newest pairwise homogeneity software and it shows warming.
So surface stations show no warming and you run it through PH to remove "bias" and it shows warming. Satellites show no warming and you run it through PH to remove "bias" and it shows warming. Fucking tree ring show no warming and you run it through PH to remove "bias" and it shows warming. If the bias in three completely different measurements all happen to match somehow maybe the bias isn't actually in the measurements.
My magic model tell me the world is going to end if we don't do anything by 2000... I meant 2005... 2010... 2020... ten years from whenever now is... shut up racist.
But the science is always evolving! /s
The heck is pairwise homogeneity?
Let's say you have a surface station that takes the high and low temp every day, and someone builds a building across the street and now the ground around the station gets a little more shade so the high temp on average drops 0.1 degree C for that station. That's an inhomogeneity, so you run it through a pairwise homogeneity algorithm and bingo bango it automatically removes the inhomogeneity even if you don't know about it. And if that seems questionable, don't worry, the code is open source and you can check the 10s of thousands of lines of spaghetti FORTRAN yourself.
It reminds me of the coding of Neil Fergusson - a European epidemiologist who always predicted 100x more deaths than occurs…. For every pandemic since 2000s.
He promised he would open source his code following covid scrutiny- and it has thousands of lines of spaghetti code that had obviously been massages and manipulation for decades.
For me it's the politics.
It'd only take about a $1 gas tax to pay for removing CO2 from cars directly from the air, and most of that cost is energy, which could be cheap and clean from nuclear (if we stopped with the nimby crap).
So this is a totally possible solution, but IPCC doesn't even look into it or model the cost or anything. Machines added the CO2, but mechanical removal is completely ignored as a solution. Same with geoengineering, which climate doomers say is "too risky" while saying it's the end times unless we completely overhaul all of industry.
IPCC report is not written by rational people, it's a report by a political thinktank pretending to be science.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Futz with the data, and the result is meaningless.
I miss that song. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/21/second-mann-spoof-video-removed/
Nice!
You should look at Dr. Roy Spencer's blog. The man knows what he's talking about; but every single time he makes a new post, the thread comments quickly deteriorates into absurdity and name calling over which data points are and are not reliable.
I think a lot of it comes from shills who obfuscate facts and flat out lie to push the narrative that everything is mankind's fault.