Odds’n’Ends while I work on researching temperature data

Note:  If anyone has a great source for raw temperature data, please post it in the comments section.  Thanks.

From the climate genius Elizabeth Warren–

“What scares me is every time you go back to the scientists, they tell you two things,” the senator said. “It’s worse than we thought, and we have less time.”

Warren is too uneducated and unscientific to see (or too evil to admit she does) this means THE SCIENCE IS WRONG.  If you miss every time, your theory is bad and should be discarded.  I remind people of this all the time.  There is a very, very wrong belief that the theory not predicting cooling is the only proof of a bad theory.  Failure to accurately predict warming—as in “it’s worse than we thought”—is absolutely proof the theory is far from proven or useful.

The kind of climate protest we all would love:

216604_5_

Great photo on American Thinker—apparently from a Twitter thread showing Extinction Rebellion with their heads buried in the sand.  Back in the era of brave and courageous humans, this would have lead to having one’s posterior soundly kicked over and over to illustrate the stupidity of the creature with its head in the sand.  Sadly, I doubt we have the courage to do what is needed.  Sigh.  It does prove they know zip about climate or science.  I guess that’s something….Plus, they’re silent now.  Maybe more protests like this, with photo ops and no speech would be nice.

A word on the wildfires in Australia:

The number one problem is humans—SETTING THE FIRES.  The arson rate for these fires is astronomical.  So when someone says the fires are human caused, agree and state that jailing arsonists might help.  There are articles to the effect that Australia has always had a problem with arson-started fires.  As wide open as the land is, I have no doubt.

When corrected about using climate change without saying “anthropogenic”:

In contemporary vernacular “climate change” has come to mean “catastrophic man made…”

If that’s not your definition, then you are by definition a “denier”.

One of my past slide shows about climate change:

 

The New Year

I plan to look at the more technical and scientific aspects of global warming this year.  Temperature measurement will be first.  There are issues like why use min and max, averages, day versus night warming (and how wind turbines can cause artificial warming if a station is near enough—and yes, it matters—what different statistical approaches yield and why claiming the “right” statistics are applied is displaying a huge lack of understanding of statistics.   Also, scientifically, all data must be preserved and presented, not just adjusted data.  The continual use of adjusted temperatures is not science, it’s propaganda.  Results with adjustments AND unadjusted data should be presented.  Reasons for adjustments should be presented, along with numerous studies and clear explanations of why the adjustments occurred.  Only then can we have real science.

Other topics will include problems with modeling, abusive use of science, why 100% agreement is a cult and not science, responses to typical global warming advocate points, and why “it’s worse than we thought” is an admission the science is still in the very early infantile stage.  If there are other topics of interest, you can comment and I will try to address them.  

These posts take considerable research so progress may be a bite slow.  I try to look at all sides and explain why the points are correct or not.  

img_0024-copy

The official drink of the global warming crew