Climate Change

Red Teaming Climate Change

An effective way to improve climate science and challenge the "climate establishment"?

|

RedBlueTeamGiordanoAitoDreamstime
Giordano Aito/Dreamstime

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt wants to set up a Red Team vs. Blue Team approach to evaluating climate change science and policy, E&E News reports. "Defined loosely, red teaming is the practice of viewing a problem from an adversary or competitor's perspective," notes Red Team Journal. In this context, the idea is to assemble a group of climate science and policy experts who would dispassionately seek to challenge the assumptions, data, and policy proposals that constitute the climate consensus.

In a sense, science is supposed to be Red Team vs. Blue Team all the way down. Researchers test each other's hypotheses and findings, trying to poke holes in what has been reported. If a hypothesis survives numerous attempts to falsify it, it is generally accepted as provisionally true. Clearly, Pruitt and some researchers who are skeptical of the more catastrophic predictions believe that the normal processes for evaluating evidentiary and policy claims have broken down with respect to climate science.

One of those researchers is John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. In his March 2017 testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Christy claimed that a "climate establishment" consisting of a small coterie of like-minded researchers has forged a "consensus of those selected to agree with a particular consensus." These gatekeepers, he argued, exclude the views and findings of more skeptical climate scientists from consideration in various scientific reports, most especially the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's periodic global climate assessment reports.

Christy's solution: climate-change Red Teams. Panels of well-credentialed scientists would produce "an assessment that expresses legitimate, alternative hypotheses that have been (in their view) marginalized, misrepresented or ignored" by the climate establishment. The topics they'd address would include "(a) evidence for a low climate sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gases, (b) the role and importance of natural, unforced variability, (c) a rigorous and independent evaluation of climate model output, (d) a thorough discussion of uncertainty, (e) a focus on metrics that most directly relate to the rate of accumulation of heat in the climate system, (f) analysis of the many consequences, including benefits, that result from CO2 increases, and (g) the importance that affordable and accessible energy has to human health and welfare."

Steven Koonin, a physicist who served as undersecretary of energy for science under Obama, endorsed the idea in an April 20 Wall Street Journal op-ed. Red Teaming, Koonin argued, would "put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, through an open, adversarial process." This, he hoped, would lead to "transparent apolitical science" and better-informed policy discussions.

As examples of successful Red Teaming, Koonin pointed to the Rogers Commission for the Challenger disaster in 1986, the Energy Department's review of cold fusion in 1989, and the Clinton-era National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). The Rogers Commission did identify the malfunction of the O-ring as the proximate cause for the Challenger space shuttle explosion, though some critics argue its final report failed to hold high NASA officials accountable for the accident. The Department of Energy's 1991 report concluded that there was no "convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion." The NBAC supported President Bill Clinton's ban on human cloning and recommended a moratorium on federal funding for any attempt to create a child using cloning techniques.

All of Koonin's examples addressed issues that are far more contained and discrete than climate. Nor were they as thoroughly politicized and polarized as what Christy calls the "murky and wicked" science of climate change. I shudder to think how eagerly environmental activists would welcome proposals to Red Team the consensus over the safety biotech crops and nuclear power.

Joseph Majkut, the director of climate policy at the Niskanen Institute, points to examples of Red Teaming in clear-cut evidentiary debates over climate data. For instance, there was the Berkeley Earth effort to evaluate the concerns of skeptics about how global temperature records were generated. The Berkeley Earth results matched those of other surface temperature trends, and the researchers concluded that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere via burning fossil fuels is largely responsible for rising average global temperatures.

Majkut also notes how researchers at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) essentially Red Teamed the satellite temperature trend records developed by Christy and his colleague Roy Spencer. They found that Christy and Spencer's data set needed to be corrected for satellite drift, which boosted the global temperature trend. Interestingly, RSS recently reanalyzed its own satellite temperature data set and has significantly boosted the rate of increase in global average temperature. Now the differences between the two data sets will have to be ironed out.

If the Trump administration does pursue climate Red Teaming, it should create several individual panels that focus on specific problems. For example, climate sensitivity is conventionally defined as how much warming would occur as a result of doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide. Researchers who are skeptical of catastrophic warming scenarios point to low-end estimates of future man-made warming. Yesterday, the journal Science Advances published a new analysis that suggests that the computer climate models' higher estimates of climate sensitivity are correct.

All temperature datasets require adjustments to take into account things like weather station location shifts, equipment changes, and satellite orbital drift. Another Red Team might focus on the propriety of these adjustment processes. For example, a team of skeptical researchers just published a working paper claiming that all three major surface temperature data sets have been spuriously adjusted so as to increase their apparent rates of warming. This new paper's analysis relies, in part, on the old RSS dataset, so it will be interesting to see how the new higher RSS temperature trend data affects their conclusions.

Given that much of policy is being based on the projections of computer climate models, a Red Team composed of statisticians and computer scientists from outside the climate establishment could make proposals that usefully enhance public confidence in those models.

Assume that the Trump administration can actually find and persuade qualified people to participate in good faith with climate Red Teams. Is it reasonable to hope that the results of such an exercise would actually change climate-change partisans' minds? Probably not, but we may as well give it a try.

Advertisement

NEXT: Blackmail is surprisingly hard to define

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …the idea is to assemble a group of climate science and policy experts who would dispassionately seek to challenge the assumptions, data, and policy proposals that constitute the climate consensus.

    The ‘dispassionately’ part goes without saying.

    1. Does it?

    2. I don’t see how “Red teaming” does anything to help the debate. There are already a lot of papers and studies that conflict with the alarmist scenarios, but they don’t get coverage, or get hand-waved away. Why is a “Team Red” paper suddenly going to get Mann, et al to stand up and say “Oh shit, you were right! Our 20 years of research was just WRONG!”

      At the end of the day, one of two things happens. The red team panels are condemned by alarmists because they were populated with big oil shills who produced shoddy science (and how can they even be considered accurate given how few people are really in the circle of climatologists) or they will be condemned by the skeptics because they were populated with token scientists who were afraid of jeopardizing their cocktail parties (and how can they even be considered accurate given some other ad hominem attack).

      1. It seems to me that your latter scenario is closer to correct. From the article, “Defined loosely, red teaming is the practice of viewing a problem from an adversary or competitor’s perspective,” That tells me that the red team is a group of climate scientists arguing against their dogma as though they were skeptics.

        In other words, it’s a Climate Science Turing test. But, somehow, when the red team fails in their efforts to represent climate skeptics and poke holes in the dogma, that result will further build the consensus.

      2. Where are these papers that don’t get looked at?

      3. “I don’t see how “Red teaming” does anything to help the debate. There are already a lot of papers and studies that conflict with the alarmist scenarios, but they don’t get coverage, or get hand-waved away.”

        The public has not been told at all, or at least not accurately, about the skeptical critique. They’ve heard only one side of the debate. And the consensus has got away with its hand-waving because there hasn’t been a moderated forum with sufficient “rounds” for skeptics to be able to challenge consensus counterpoints and force the consensus to come to grips with inconvenient issues.

        1. The public has not been told at all, or at least not accurately, about the skeptical critique. They’ve heard only one side of the debate.

          A great deal of skeptical argument just doesn’t jive with the evidence. That is its fatal flaw.

          1. “A great deal of skeptical argument just doesn’t jive with the evidence. That is its fatal flaw.”

            LOL. As opposed to a how a great deal of the pro-climate change argument just doesn’t jive with the evidence?

            1. Climate science is constrained by the evidence.

              There are whole projections by the IPCC showing the world in a very polluted form. It is a nasty world to live in. CO2 projection is a very easy model to show the future.

              1. Yeah, tell me about all the correct predictions those models have made.

                (crickets chirping)

    3. It’s already happened, RonHaving listened with great respect, but some puzzlement to Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s cogent expression of his views on global warming, two public-spirited and authentically skeptical Kansan graduates of that institution opted a few years ago to fund a Red Team exercise of their own.

      They called in a Berkeley professor, skeptical as themselves as to the global temperture record, and as astute and scientifically accomplished as Lindzen himself, and asked him to dissect the issue anew. So he delved into the temperature record , including Watts contention that badly sited thermometer stations were behind the apparent rise, and did a goodly amount of research, and gigabytes of analysis, statistical and dimensional.

      Whereupon Professor Richard Muller announced that his Red Team had changed his mind, He concluded the meteorological common wisdom was indeed true-

      There was no decline for erstwhile ‘Climate Skeptics’ to hide behind. Global temperatures urban and rural, wet and dry, were going up, not down or sideways as die hards still contend.

      As that was good enough for the sponsors of the exercise, the fossil fuel rich and worldly-wise MIT educated brothers Koch, why should us taxpayers pay for an instant replay ?

      https://goo.gl/1SRb8i

  2. “Steven Koonin, a physicist who served as undersecretary of energy for science under Obama, endorsed the idea in an April 20 Wall Street Journal op-ed.”

    Now that he’s free to talk . . . .

  3. In a sense, science is supposed to be Red Team vs. Blue Team all the way down. Researchers test each other’s hypotheses and findings, trying to poke holes in what has been reported.

    Bull shit. Science is getting really smart people to come to a consensus. You don’t question the really smart people. They’re like really smart and stuff. You think you are smarter than them? You’re not. They’re like totally smart. So when the really smart people like vote and stuff, you get science. Now shut the fuck up and bow to the alter of Owlgor.

    1. Not to be confused with Trogdor.

      1. Professors must be geniuses because they decided to teach at the collegiate level rather than take a risk and run a profitable business and employ people.
        Somehow, the guy that does the latter can be considered lesser of a person intellectually.

        1. Those who cannot do, teach.

          1. And those that become arrogant at teaching let the communista come out eventually.

            We all had plenty of arrogant leftists teachers. I remember about 7 of them that practically wore a badge. .

        2. To be fair, teaching is important because it helps young people gain skills from seasoned masters of their professions.

          Unfortunately, academia is full of not those people and they are teaching young people biased ways of looking at things and putting their BS insecurities on these kids.

          1. We’ve all had good ones. I think it is safe to say that almost all collegiate level professors are leftists who think it is their job to brainwash people.

            1. I am surprised there are any good ones left. The commies tend to push the good ones out.

            2. I really have no idea what the political leanings of any of my college professors were. I expect that all or most are some kind of left-winger. But in class they didn’t make that terribly apparent.

              The subjects I chose to study probably helped. And it’s nearly 20 years since I started college, so maybe things have changed.

          2. Which is why more freedom lovers need to enter the profession in music schools. By refusing to fight at the beginning of the fight (making the minds of the youth) we are starting out at a HUGE disadvantage. We have to disprove emotive responses before we can ever begin to engage the faculty of reason for most people. As a public school teacher I can attest that the unbrainwashed youth “get it” really easy when classic liberalism is explained to them. And they get how all government does is screw them over… If someone will just teach them how the real world works.

            I teach in a public school so that one day we might not have public schools. Until then, by avoiding the profession rather than taking it over we are losing before the fight even begins.

      2. Professors must be geniuses because they decided to teach at the collegiate level rather than take a risk and run a profitable business and employ people.
        Somehow, the guy that does the latter can be considered lesser of a person intellectually.

        1. Tenure, man. Tenure.

    2. You forgot hold street marches and demonstrations ( the agitator type , never the experimental type ) .

    3. Science is about evidence. Are yyyou saying the scientists are cheating?

      1. Here’s Judith Curry on that point, at https://goo.gl/qE6ykg

        “The disagreement is not so much about observational evidence, but rather about the epistemic status of climate models, the logics used to link the observational evidence into arguments, the overall framing of the problem and overconfident conclusions in the face of incomplete evidence and understanding. The ‘multiple lines of evidence’ argument simply doesn’t work for a very complex problem, and there are multiple lines of evidence that lead to alternative conclusions.”

        1. Yeah, but she’s a denier, so none of that is true.

        2. “The disagreement is not so much about observational evidence, but rather about the epistemic status of climate models,

          What a crock of shit. Its about evidence. The models use evidence for their projections.

          1. “What a crock of shit. Its about evidence. The models use evidence for their projections.”

            If it was about the evidence, the debate would be over. But the evidence isn’t clear either way, at the very least.

            And those models that use the evidence? That’s the crock of shit. NONE of their projects have EVER been right. Even when you input the ACTUAL data during a time period, the models do not predict what actually happened.

            1. Patrick Henry, the 2nd

              Climate models have predicted observations before they were measured. Such as the cooling of the stratosphere. That was with older models to boot.

              Again you are buying into the propaganda of the fossil fuel meisters. Models are used to study the possibilities of what can be and compared to reality. There are lot of areas the models have done very well for a learning tool. And for what will happen as a possibility.

              1. Bullshit.

                Show us these supposed predictions they got right.

                The models are full of shit and so are you.

  4. The science is red-teamed now, I recommend sources such as wattsupwiththat.com (which started after surfacestations.org set out to calalog all of the US climate monitoring weather stations) and also climateaudit.org. I haven’t followed it in several years, but climateaudit thouroughly reviewed the reports from the major climate science sources. They found many major errors, and when they pointed them out the response was to claim that they didn’t affect the conclusion.

    1. I recommend howdidhegetthatinthere.com, but it has nothing to do with climate, other than the umbrella section, of course.

    2. whatupwiththat! that was a great show.

      1. +1 running man
        -$10k to the FCC because Sam Jackson said a cuss

    3. WUWT has been wrong on purpose. Its whole purpose is denial of the climate science. Its not about evidence speaking for reality.

      1. renewableguy|7.6.17 @ 5:38PM|#
        “WUWT has been wrong on purpose. Its whole purpose is denial of the climate science. Its not about evidence speaking for reality.”

        Here’s what we’ll get:
        Some bleever sticking fingers in his ears and screaming “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”
        See, if you don’t agree, you’re a denialist and not a bleever and you’re going to roast in hell if you don’t get right with Gaia!

        1. I have studied climate change for 11 years. It jsut didn’t jive with the evidence. His assertions were just wrong.

          1. If you studied climate change for 11 years, and aren’t a skeptic, you were doing it wrong.

            1. IF you are studying from the point of view of being a denier, then yyou are doing it all wrong. I am not a scientist, I am a la person that enjoys science. I have watched denial in some very clever twists and turns go down in flames every time. It is doomed to fail simply becuase they hate the science that is true, correct, and bullet proof.

              1. Hey, did you know the word “gullible” isn’t in the dictionary?

          2. Which assertions were wrong? The data are usually part of the posts, what do you disagree with?

            1. Climate sensitivity. temperature stations.

    1. Crusty Juggler< You

    2. +1 Should have swept the Oscars that year.

    3. Holy shit, I thought I was the only other person who had seen that movie!

      Faga Beef-ee!?!?!

      1. Fun fact: three Reason commenters have watched the movie, which is awesome, but all three commenters are Citizen X sockpuppets, which is sad.

        1. You misspelled “awesome.”

          1. You misspelled “awesome.”

  5. h) its just a theory
    i) none of thus stuff has even come close to being true
    j) people who live on the coast have seen no evidence of water rising. I have been watching it living on the east coast my whole life. Absolutely no indication of rising sea level.

    ie) horseshit being passed off by Marxists who don’t know that they are deep state worthy Marxists.

    1. https://climate.nasa.gov/

      So NASA isn’t telling it like it is?

      1. All bow to the highest order of priests!

      2. No, they are not.

        1. NASA can stand behind what they do in the field of science. I don’t think you have a prayer. Yours is the faith based belief with no evidence to support your point of view.

          1. And yours is the one that can’t produce a model that proves anything that’s non-trivial.

            You didn’t just inhale, you drank the bong water.

  6. “This new paper’s analysis relies, in part, on the old RSS dataset, so it will be interesting to see how the new higher RSS temperature trend data affects their conclusions.”

    So, once again, an entire dataset is adjusted upward? It seems like adjustment to temperature datasets are overwhelmingly in the upward direction. It makes one inclined to believe the researchers are biases towards global warming.

    1. headline today: Greenland has thickest ice this late in the season ever.

      By climate consensus logic, that would mean that global warming is fixed, right?

      1. Oh, and whatever you do ignore why it was ever called ‘Greenland’ in the first place.

        1. HA. Never even thought about that softball.

          1. The best defense of that I’ve heard so far is that Vikings had a very perverse sense of humor. ^_^

            1. And awesome longboats.

              Berserkers were awesome too.

            2. I’d heard that it was savvy marketing on Erik the Red’s part, trying to lure more settlers to the harsh land to which he’d been banished. That doesn’t explain why southern Greenland is littered with the remains of thousand-year-old magnolia trees, or why the last writings of the Greenland vikings mention the summers getting colder and the ice creeping closer every year.

              Fun fact: when Denmark re-colonized Greenland a few hundred years later, the (Protestant) Danish government was worried they were going to run into a bunch of pre-Reformation Catholic vikings there. However, it turned out that the last settlers had long since fled to Norway.

              1. …or why the last writings of the Greenland vikings mention the summers getting colder and the ice creeping closer every year.

                Hmm…this is news to me. Do you have any cite for that? I’d love to read it!

                1. Found one. My information is a little out of date – the new hot theory is that economic factors, such as the rise of the Hanseatic League, played a role as well. You know who else came from Germany and royally screwed over a bunch of people?

                  1. Good read, and it seems to confirm a changing environment was at play between 900A.D.-1400A.D. even while it attempts to lay some of the blame on roughly 5000 people, somehow. So really the only difference seems to be that now, they try to blame the tiny population of Vikings for some of the environmental changes. While possible, this seems to reflect an increasingly common notion that mankind must always be responsible.

              2. If Greenland were green-ish 1000 years ago, Iceland would have been geen-er. The traditional story has always been that Erik the Red named Iceland thusly in order to prevent people from going to what he considered his little island paradise, distracting people into going to “Greenland” instead.

                It’s what my Icelander great-aunt told me as a child and I take it as gospel, dammit.

                1. …but Erik lived on Greenland…so…?

                  1. MY AUNT SAID SO.

                2. >>>Icelander great-aunt told me as a child

                  the Fauxcahontas Approach to Verity.

            3. they miss Fran Tarkenton

  7. what’s the ticket on the new Nonsense Counter-Team?

    1. Nobody in Washington is qualified for such a team.

      1. Are you saying the Generals are Swiss cheese or something?

        1. Bullets haven’t been the same since Hayes and Unseld.

  8. This seems like overwrought. question begging, as a commission. The simple reason is because a Red Team approach won’t make any difference when they’re being required to prove a null hypothesis but there are other reasons as well.

    I’m not necessarily against this approach, don’t get me wrong it can and is incredibly useful, but there isn’t anything ‘there’ to Red Team in the first place other than a lot of temperature readings, which is a waste of time because (legitimate or not) they aren’t functionally useful data recordings either way. The simple reason for that is timeline, in that they don’t cover a statistically useful period of time; period.

    For another reason, as pointed out, temperature readings themselves are always being adjusted one way or the other (although almost assuredly it’s by-and-large an upwards adjustment across the board) making them sound useful when in fact they are…not. They are imaginary numbers, even if they’re ‘educated guess’ imaginary.

    This strikes me as an attempt to re-legitimize their temperature recordings more than it being any serious effort to clarify the actual ‘science’. Frankly speaking, the temperature records we have are functionally useless, which is probably why they seek a Red Team stamp of approval even though that has more or less already been done before many, many times.

    1. What is the temperature of the square root of negative one?

    2. The simple reason is because a Red Team approach won’t make any difference when they’re being required to prove a null hypothesis

      There needs to be a Red Team composed entirely of Russian Hackers. So, as a blue team, when you get done analyzing your data, you get to ask yourself, “Are all the data points and any trends I discovered real or is it just a plot to influence the outcome in Putin’s favor?”

      But, yeah, I agree still likely just a ‘Red Team Approved!’ stunt. Red Teaming is more of an exploratory or ab initio tool. Considering the problem is that we’re starting with conclusions and working backwards and are supposedly well past the nascent stages of the science, it strikes me as exceedingly political. Moreover, It’s not like the Red Team is going to win and suddenly be put in charge of all the modelling supercomputers and we scrap the satellite program or anything.


      1. Considering the problem is that we’re starting with conclusions and working backwards and are supposedly well past the nascent stages of the science, it strikes me as exceedingly political

        This is more or less why I call it overwrought question begging. I honestly don’t see what a red team is intended to accomplish here. If anything, the red team ought to be the people who say there will be catastrophic change, which is itself a problem.

        1. If anything, the red team ought to be the people who say there will be catastrophic change, which is itself a problem.

          I guess this was a bigger part of my ‘Russian Hackers’ idea as well. The Red Team would effectively need to demonstrate a greater alternative existential threat and pull funding towards combating it. Exxon, the Russians, and/or Musk could totally hack the shit out of the satellites and/or AGW data and crush both the energy and the carbon-trading markets and wind up dominating the globe in less than a decade. At which point, worrying about sea levels in 100 yrs. becomes moot, if only because ‘science’ doesn’t get a say.

          Somebody needs to write a white paper (if they haven’t already) the AGW and satellite data into the blockchain. With all the hype around DAOs it almost seems like introspective and self-aware markets would be a thing by now.

      2. I would be happy if the trump team would just take government dollars out of all of the research and subsidies and nonsense and see how long the whole thing would last without the dollar incentive of government funded scientists.

        That is the whole consensus anyway.

    3. Yep. BEST comes to mind.

    4. They might finally look at the classic non-optional quantitatively testable physics .
      And find that neither it nor experimental demonstration of Al Gore + James Hansen spectral GHG “trapping” of heat causing bottoms of atmospheres to be hotter than their tops exists .

  9. Wait. The climate change fanatics ARE the red team. Somehow every proposed fix to the proved science problem has nothing to do with climate, but a lot to do with appropriation and redistribution.
    What we need is a reality team.
    Hint: Carbon dioxide is NECESSARY for plant life. Plants either are food, are or food for food, depending on your attitude towards PETA.

    1. Looks like someone didn’t even skim the article.

      1. Squaw Valley is still open. No need to read…

    2. If we shrunk government many of these problems would go away.

      We have too many academics on the government payroll with nothing to do but make their cause super important to get more funding.

      Make these academics convince businessmen of the importance of their research and then I might consider changing “x”.

      1. If climate change is not the end of mankind, then Leo Dicaprio can’t fly around the world in Jet #2 snorting blow off of supermodel’s asses to go protest the guy with three jets.

    3. Don’t tell me. We are in a carbon starved world.

      co2 is a ver significant ghg in our atmosphere. it is the main driver behind climate change. Other drivers revolve around co2 in a positive feedback sense. You are conveniently leaving a lot out of the picture in your narrow thinking.

  10. I’m not so sure that (f) and (g) are really scientific questions, especially (g). But I think that to the list should be added (h) a thorough analysis of the basis for isotope concentrations and other proxies for temperature that are used to build long-term temperature series. These are all correlational and I think the error bars are a lot bigger than people will admit to, especially the further back you go.

    1. I thought an isotope was a baseball player.

      1. You’re probably thinking of Tiny Iota, the blernsball player. That guy was great.

  11. In other words, doing science and skepticism correctly.

  12. Apart from the fact that climate science is put up to international tests of this sort on a regular basis (more rigorously than any other branch of science), there was actually just such an attempt at a skeptical “red team” assessment in the 2011 Berkeley temperature study whose biggest funder was, ta da, the Koch brothers. Anthony Watts, mentioned above in some stupid comments, vowed to take its findings as fact. The findings of this Koch-funded attempt to sow doubt in the consensus on climate change? I’ll quote the head of the study:

    “Global warming [is] real,” “prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct,” and “it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

    Scott Pruitt is not interested in skepticism or science. He’s interested in continuing to sow doubt in science for the economic benefit of fossil fuel interests who have owned him for years.

    1. More rigorous than aerospace engineering or physics, where a mistake literally causing a fireball explosion? Do tell.

      Sorry, mate, but hard science faces the most rigorous Red Team challenge of all; functionality.

      1. Please spare me the inane babbling of engineers who think they’re the bestest scientists of all but also think Noah could fit every animal on a boat in pairs.

        What sort of machine do you want? All they’re doing is measuring, recording data, and coming to conclusions.

        1. That was some of your best nonsense yet. Keep going by all means.

          And have you read your books yet Einstein?

        2. …a red team approach is intended to apply adversarial principles to science in that they are always attempting to prove or disprove theories. Reality is the ultimate red team, in that if your airplane flies your ‘theory’ is correct, at least in it’s main points. If it explodes, you’re wrong somewhere important.

          So, the most rigorous ‘Red Team’ you can possibly have is reality when using applied scientific principles.

          Is this somehow controversial to you Tony? Note that I wasn’t even attacking your main point, for once.

          1. But what sort of application would be relevant here?

            My understanding is that the Red Team approach is about testing efficiency in systems, things like intelligence services and airport security. Science then is a constant “red team” approach. Constantly testing the theory for holes is what scientists do every day.

            1. That’s rather the point, Tony, in that it isn’t relevant here.

              1. “Functionality” is analogous to hypotheses being verified experimentally in physical science. I’ve seen rockets explode. Nobody’s demonstrated that the planet’s temperature is stable, yet.

                1. That’s because that absolutely no one at all is under the misapprehension that the planet will ever be ‘stable’ except you.

            2. Constantly testing the theory for holes is what scientists do every day.

              Yet, when anybody suggests climate science be subjected to this same “everyday” practice, you scream bloody murder and start babbling about Koch-brothers conspiracies.

              Sounds legit.

            3. My understanding is that the Red Team approach is about testing efficiency in systems, things like intelligence services and airport security.

              Huh? My experience is Red Team is a functional extension of failure mode testing. However, as I said above, it doesn’t exactly make sense in a ‘pure science’ application. You can’t exactly Red Team gravity.

              The fact that we’re even talking about Red Teaming science shows just how fucked up the whole situation is. A hypothesis is inherently red teamed in relative perpetuity. If anything, economists have been the AGW Red Team from the beginning and they’ve been consistently ignored and un-scientifically excluded and/or derided.

              1. Well, economists aren’t real scientists so that’s pretty understandable. I mean, don’t get me wrong I find economics incredibly interesting and useful but it’s not a hard science.

    2. Uncle Fester,
      As an analogy; Unfounded Climate change crises are to failed socialist states as climate change catastrophists are to brainwashed leftists

      How many failed socialists states/programs would it take to make you question socialism? Let’s see: N Korea, Cuba, China, South Africa right now, Venezuela, Liberia, Most of Africa since the end of imperialism, USSR, Bolivia, The Iron Curtain countries, Obamacare, etc…

      If only they would do it right eh Benito?

      1. Name one significant organization on planet earth other than the Republican party who thinks human-caused climate change isn’t real.

        1. The democratic party?

        2. The Clinton Foundation?

        3. The Man-Bear-Pig Institute

        4. Tony’s mom

        5. “Name one significant organization on planet earth other than the Republican party who thinks human-caused climate change isn’t real.”

          That’s not the question. The question is “how much climate change are we looking at?” I.e., is it a catastrophic threat or not?

          1. This. I am skeptical that humans have any affect on the climate at all, but I can concede that it seems possible humans have affected it.

            Very few people, even on the skeptic side believe that humans have zero affect on the the climate. The questions that are constantly debated is “how much are humans affecting it?”, “how bad will it be?”, and “how will we handle it?”

            It seems likely that humans are not affecting it greatly.

            It seems likely that it will not be bad at all, and in fact a warmer climate is better. It also seems likely the Earth will start cooling soon.

            As for how to handle it? Since it is not catastrophic based on the evidence, we should not do any drastic changes. Just continue to innovate and reduce our impact. And let the free market do that, not government.

        6. Freeman Dyson, who has forgotten more about science than you will ever know.

    3. The guy who ran Berkeley Earth pretended like he was some kind of skeptic as he was advertising for his new project. If you look at all the things he said and wrote prior, he was obviously fully on team CAGW.

      The thing he was “skeptical” about while advertising for his new project was The Hockeystick Graph. He said he was starting a new project to get to the bottom of it. So did he redo the temperature reconstruction over the last 10k years? No, he took the same “adjusted” instrumental dataset representing the last 150 or so years that everyone else uses and did his own statistics on it. So it’s no surprise that he came up with pretty much the same answer.

      The findings of this Koch-funded attempt to sow doubt in the consensus on climate change?

      Actually, it was an attempt at fake Red Teaming, as alluded to above. It was actually the opposite of what you claim here.

      1. So why did the Kochs waste their money on it?

        1. Kochs. F*cking capitalists.

        2. Beats me. Maybe they thought this guy was really going to do historical temperature reconstructions to show The Hockey Stick to be the garbage that it is.

          All I know is that this guy said that he had lots of problems with The Hockey Stick and then proceeded to not do anything related to it, but instead just re-treaded the same tortured instrumental dataset that everyone bases their 150 year graphs on.

          1. Are you denying that there’s historically unprecedented warming in the 20th and 21st century or are you just throwing out buzzwords?

            If you’re going to claim to be smarter than the world’s scientific community I think you should at least have to read up on what the fuck you think you’re talking about. I’ll wait.

            1. Are you denying that there’s historically unprecedented warming in the 20th and 21st century

              The warming of the late 20th century and early 21st are nothing out of the ordinary, so it’s not unprecedented. It’s been warmer in the past and rates of temperature change have been more rapid in the past as well.

            2. Are you denying that there’s historically unprecedented warming in the 20th and 21st century or are you just throwing out buzzwords?

              The fact is that no one knows with any certainty. Your statements regarding this “global scientific consensus” that only Republicans don’t believe are greatly overstated.

              1. Not really. You just have to get your head out of denier blogs that confirm what you want to believe.

                1. Tony|7.6.17 @ 5:00PM|#
                  “Not really. You just have to get your head out of denier blogs that confirm what you want to believe.”

                  You are a fucking idiot and if you really wanted to help your argument, you’d keep your yaap shut and quite proving you’re an ignoramus.
                  Here ya go, pal:
                  http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~le…..limate.htm


            3. …historically unprecedented warming in the 20th and 21st century…

              We can’t know that, because we only have data for the 20th and 21st century. So it’s only ‘unprecedented’ in the sense that no other data exists at all beyond data points that could be centuries, millennia, or epochs apart. I.E. ‘Not Useful’ for trend analysis.

              1. We don’t only have data for the 20th and 21st century. I presume you’ll read this thoroughly and in good faith:

                link

                1. You do understand the difference between proxy measurements and direct measurements right?

                  Right?

                  1. He does not.

                  2. “You do understand the difference between proxy measurements and direct measurements right?”

                    The editor of the Dog Walker’s Weekly at River Pines Gated Community has a bit of a problem with “measurement”
                    So start there.

            4. “Are you denying that there’s historically unprecedented warming in the 20th and 21st century”

              Yes, its clearly is not historically unprecedented, as its been much warming in the past.

              Also, we don’t denying there has been no warming in 20 years.

              I predict the Earth will actually start cooling based on the data.

    4. Apart from the fact that climate science is put up to international tests of this sort on a regular basis (more rigorously than any other branch of science),

      That is not true. It may be under more rigorous political scrutiny, but I haven’t seen any evidence that climate science is itself is more thoroughly vetted than “other forms of science” which is a pretty broad subject.

      1. It’s actually vetted considerably less than “other forms of science.” Even the IPCC has complained about the US’ Team Blue and their tendency to rush to headlines with unpublished research. Tony is, as usual, full of shit and has no idea what he’s talking about.

      2. The IPCC takes two years for each of its findings on compiling world science on climate. It is truly the most vetted ever. I don’t know of any field of science that has done this. This has been accomplished five times. Which is about 10 years of review by a very large body of scientists.

        Now have the fossil fuel propagandists kicked it up a notch. Very much so. A lot of people on here are calling the propaganda the real truth about climate science. Which is easily disprovable.

        1. If it were so easily disprovable, you’d actually disprove it instead of making evidence-free and ad hominem assertions up and down this comment thread. On the other hand, if sounding like a disheveled street corner preacher is what you were going for, by all means, have at it.

          1. The troll even admits upthread that he’s not a scientist, ergo he’s just spewing the bullshit he’s been fed.

    5. And your STEM credentials are … ?

      You appear to be a determined know-nothing dupe .

      1. Some appearances are deceiving; this one isn’t.

  13. Apart from the fact that climate science is put up to international tests of this sort on a regular basis (more rigorously than any other branch of science)

    Good one!

    1. Do you endorse this positive scientifically testable claim?:

      Exxon, Saudi Arabia, and literally every other major entity in the world except the US Republican party is in on a giant conspiracy to perpetuate a hoax in order to pad Al Gore’s interests in solar panels?

      1. giant conspiracy

        You’re not part of a conspiracy if you just go with the flow. Whether they believe in CAGW or not, politicians (“leaders”) around the world see this “crisis” as a huge opportunity for redistribution and more power for them. Climate scientists aren’t going to endanger their funding or careers, so they go with the flow, whether they truly believe deep down that CO2 will kill us all. It’s not some secret conspiracy. They’re all just on working on the same set of incentives.

        1. I see. And do you suppose perhaps that fossil fuel interests, some of the wealthiest in the history of the world mind you, might have a stake in the matter too?

          (They all agree with the scientific consensus now too, if for no other reason than they can’t sustain the lie any longer and be taken seriously by anyone.)

          The only people on your team is the American GOP running on inertia.

          1. Sigh. Oil companies haven’t lost a dime from going with the flow (no pun intended) on the global warming thing. Big corporations adapt to the zeitgeist. Well, the one’s that want to continue to succeed do. It’s not like oil and gas are actually going anywhere any time soon anyway.

            1. So you are saying that the Republican party alone among all relevant organizations on planet Earth is correct about the science of climate change, and that all the world’s scientific bodies, governments, major companies, and educated people who aren’t in the Republican party are either party to or duped by what must be by far history’s largest hoax, whose motive remains somewhat murky?

              1. all the world’s scientific bodies, governments, major companies, and educated people who aren’t in the Republican party are either party to or duped by what must be by far history’s largest hoax

                Can you read? Whether they believe it or not, whether they are right or not, the incentive structure is such that politicians and scientists whose pay relies on them toeing the party line will continue to do so.

                And I don’t even know the Republican Party platform position on global warming.

                And word searching this for “climate change” doesn’t really shed any light on it either.

              2. all the world’s scientific bodies, governments, major companies, and educated people who aren’t in the Republican party

                What is it, exactly, that you feel all of these parties agree about?

                Be specific, now.

                1. The world is warming caused primarily by humans emitting fossil fuels.

                  1. The world is warming caused primarily by humans emitting fossil fuels.

                    Yeah – nope.

                    The world is warming. You’ve got near 100% consensus on that.

                    “Caused primarily by humans” and you’re down to more like 75% consensus among climate science studies not among scientists.

                    “by humans emitting fossil fuels” and you’re down to about 50% among climate science studies not among scientists.

                    Please for the love of God, read your primary texts before evangelizing.

            2. And what tipped you off to the GOP’s special, unique genius on this matter? The election of the greatest mind of our age, Donald Trump?

            3. Tony still thinks there is a difference b/w the GOP and Dems. That is the mind you are dealing with here.

              1. Well they do disagree on pretty much everything.

                Oh wait, I know, it’s all a show right? To keep the sheeple occupied while they fleece us, or something?

                Everything’s a fucking conspiracy but you can’t wrap your head around oil companies peddling propaganda for the sake of their own profits. Just weird.

                1. You can’t wrap your head around people with power peddling propaganda for the sake of their own power. Just weird.

                  1. By people you mean every single government, major corporation, political party, and scientific body on earth except the American Republican party.

                    So I’ll ask you: what makes you think they’re right and everyone else is wrong?

                    1. Tony, I’d like to see some evidence of this claim that the US Republican Party is the only organization in the world that isn’t fully on board with the IPCC consensus.

                    2. Koch industries might be in there with them, but I’m sure you’ll agree that their interests in fossil fuels makes them a biased party to say the least.

                      And the fact that the Kochs decide which Republicans get to be in Congress might have something to do with the party’s unique position on this matter.

                    3. What exactly is it that you believe the Republican Party’s position on this to be?

                      Be specific, now.

                    4. their interests in fossil fuels makes them a biased party to say the least.

                      No one on the other side is biased for selfish reasons.

                      And the fact that the Kochs decide which Republicans get to be in Congress

                      Now who’s the conspiracy theorist?

                    5. Who needs evidence? Certainly not Tony. His assertions are fact. The burden of proof is on you. If you can catch the goalposts. They move pretty quick.

                2. “A conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot is sufficient.”

          2. Exxon got on board because they see an avenue to regulate competitors out of the way. This is the calling card of government collusion in business. Once you reach a certain size, the government comes for their protection money or they will regulate you into oblivion.

            Think about Microsoft or Google right now. When they were sued for anti-trust, do you really think they had a monopoly on software engineering or using the vast resources of technology and the internet. No. That was Oracle going to Washington with money to get their competitor mired in court to slow them down. Same principal with the major oil companies playing along with Washington’s climate charade. They do this stuff to appear benevolent and to say that they are working on sustainable fuels. It in no way invalidates the fact the fossil fuel is the only way first world economies can function because economies have to have affordable energy. Climate change is irrelevant in the real world.

            1. So fossil fuel companies are finally diversifying (although dragging their feet as much as possible of course), nobody in the world denies the science but you and a couple other deadbeat freaks with an internet connection, yet you’re still doing unpaid shill work for an interest that doesn’t even want you anymore?

              1. So fossil fuel companies are finally diversifying

                Yeah, with other fossil fuels (natural gas).

              2. nobody in the world denies the science

                What is it that you believe “The Science” says?

                Be specific, now.

                1. He can’t cause Tony is a scientific illiterate.

      2. its not just to pad the pockets of bureaucrats and corrupt politicians. its to keep sheeple tonys from exploring the real injustices of massive governments around the world.

        You know tony, sing along: $20 trillion in debt, never ending wars, bankrupt social programs, crony-socialist(fascist) governments partying on junkets around the world(UN, G20, World Bank, BIS, IMF, FED banks)

        You know buddy, all of the things you are too ignorant to learn about. We all know the climate meme. Oil on birds sells to dumb-dumbs.

        1. Could you try again, this time with coherence?

          1. Read your books Lenny.

        2. crony-socialist(fascist) governments partying on junkets around the world

          I’ll start believing that these people are sincere when they stop jetting around every other week to do something that could be done over the internet.

          1. Cant have hookers on Skype.

  14. Wow, I’m stunned no one has mentioned it, so I will.

    What we need is a climate science Dream Team.

    1. the Blue-Ribbon panel to decide the Dream Team will be fucking spectacular.

    2. Including Denis Rodman.

  15. Is it reasonable to hope that the results of such an exercise would actually change climate-change partisans’ minds?

    That depends on your definition of “partisan”. A true believer is going to say the new evidence is proof positive of their position and anybody who refuses to accept that it’s proof positive is a true believer on the other side, immune to facts and logic and reason. Of course, it’s the true believers on both sides that will be making the exact same argument, each believing it’s the other side that can’t see the plain truth right before their noses. So if you’re kinda neutral on the subject, you don’t know enough to say one side is definitely right and the other side definitely wrong, you have an opinion but it’s not a strong opinion and you’re willing to change your opinion as you see new evidence, are you really a partisan in the first place?

    For my part, I’m quite confident that I have an above-average (for an American, at any rate) grasp of math and science and I’ve seen some of the papers climatologists put out and I can tell you this stuff is way over my head. Which leads me to suspect the vast majority of people talking shit about the debate have no idea what the hell they’re talking about. Might as well be arguing over whether or not T-Rexes tended to be left-handed – the average person’s opinion on the matter is worth exactly nothing.

    1. Yay… someone who acknowledges that people with advanced degrees in mathematics, climatology, and ecology might know something that the average person doesn’t. You and your deference to actual experts. That’s so 1950s, man.

      1. I always find it amusing that those who most identify with their ignorance of science are those with the most rigid opinions on the subject.

      2. What do mathematics, climatology, and ecology have in common as sciences? Well, nothing, for starters.

        One of them isn’t a science at all, but rather a language used in science. One of them is a cliff-notes version of at least three other actual fields of study, and one of them is a subset of another science.

        No real point, I just thought it was funny you mention those three specifically.

      3. Robespierre Josef Stalin|7.6.17 @ 4:40PM|#
        “Yay… someone who acknowledges that people with advanced degrees in mathematics, climatology, and ecology might know something that the average person doesn’t. You and your deference to actual experts. That’s so 1950s, man.”

        Booo.
        One more lefty twit, ignorant of the data, but lusting over the chance to pull guns on people and tell them how to live.
        Fuck off, commie-kid.

  16. In this context, the idea is to assemble a group of climate science and policy experts who would dispassionately seek to challenge the assumptions, data, and policy proposals that constitute the climate consensus.

    Isn’t that what is done in the process of peer review?

    If we’re going to peer review the peer reviewers we should probably be fair and appoint members of the Whole Earth Journal to review GM crops and the Church of Scientology to review the safety of acetaminophen.

    If special interest groups can just dismiss the qualifications and judgment of people with phDs that have been trained to look at data we should just fucking give up on looking at math and science and just concentrate on getting a degree in the humanities. That’s more fun anyway.

    1. Except the statisticians that have looked at the clusterfuck the warmists call “statistics” and called bullshit on it have been shouted down by idiots like you.

  17. Isn’t science history full of “such and such is settled” because “all reputable scientists believe it”…until a Newton or Copernicus or Einstein comes along?

    1. This is different because Exon and Koch brothers and Republicans.

    2. Who is the Einstein in this situation? Some guy with a blog?

      1. Who is the Einstein in this situation? Some guy with a blog?

        Maybe some nobody schmo who works as some clerk in some government office somewhere.

        1. And we’re going to claim that the science is wrong in spite of this guy not existing yet on the premise that he might exist one day? Do you apply this, uh, form of skepticism to any other branch of science?

          1. Wow. That’s pretty bad even for you.

            1. Gravity is much more of a mystery than climate change. Do you suggest we start building houses upside down because there might be someone to come along to prove that gravity doesn’t pull us toward the earth?

              1. Gravity is much more of a mystery than climate change.

                No, it isn’t. Gravity is probably the most well-described natural phenomenon there is. It’s “not understood” in the sense that we don’t know what causes it. Climate change is much less well understood, undeniably.

                In other words, you’re equivocating. But there’s no shock there.

                1. We have some pretty good idea’s on what causes it, but how do you test something that can’t be generated outside of…huge planetary amounts of mass? I mean, we could build another Earth but…that seems like a lot of trouble.

                  How about we talk about magnets?

                  1. How about we talk about magnets?

                    Now that shit is spooky.

                    How do they work?

                    1. Fuck if I know. I’ve read lots about them, but all the explanations seem to boil down to really fancy ways of saying ‘we have no idea, and it’s infuriating that we can’t explain how a fucking rock works’.

                    2. Yeah – I was going for a snarky ICP reference, but I was always mystified by how magnets work, and then I had the opportunity one term of commuting by train for two hours with a physics grad student. I thought this was my chance, so I asked her. Not “how do we describe magnetic field and force levels and such” but “why do they do that?”

                      She looked at me like I had asked a really weird question that she’d never considered before, and then simply said “no one really knows.”

                2. We know definitively what is causing the climate change in question.

                  1. Tony|7.7.17 @ 4:12AM|#
                    “We know definitively what is causing the climate change in question.”

                    You’re full of shit.

            2. Wait–is it possible that he really doesn’t get that you’re referring to Einstein himself?

              Can he be that dense?

              1. You’ll never go wrong overestimating how stupid Tony is.

          2. “Do you apply this, uh, form of skepticism to any other branch of science?”

            Nutrition, for starters. The whole world was on board, until recently, with the now-exploded consensus too.

    3. Pretty much. Apparently hundreds of failed predictions does little to sway people’s opinions.

      1. Look. Climate change is real because Koch brothers. Just look at how rich Exon is. That’s proof right there. And anyone who says otherwise is wrong because Republicans. Fossil fuels are destroying the planet because they are bad. You can’t pump all this oil out from under the ground without bad things happening. So climate change must be real. See?

        1. The only way to fix this is to kill and eat the rich. That is the real motive here anyway.

          1. Well, yeah. Not all the rich though. The ones with the correct politics can be left alone.

            1. …for now.

  18. Red team should focus on why Reason keeps flogging the religion of catastrophic AGW…

    1. this ^^

  19. Wait a second… Pruitt is a science denier. Why, then, is he advocating for, you know… doing actual science?!?!

    My progressive worldview does not accept these sorts of facts. Head exploding in 3…2…1

    1. That’s not science! Science is deferring to experts! They’re super smart, so they must be right! Do not question authority!

      1. That’s pretty much word-for-word what Bill Nye told Tucker Carlson.

  20. When a climate change article is pushed onto the stack, Tony is out in full commenting force. The irony – of course – is that he doesn’t know shit about science or any part of what a scientist might even do. He’s never solved a PDE, has no clue as to what the Planck BB function is, probably has never written a line of code in his life, doesn’t understand stats at all so the idea of uncertainty is completely foreign to him, doesn’t know what a principal component is or even an eigen vector, on and on…but still he comments on this stuff as if he has a fucking clue.

    It is truly remarkable since to Tony, the reality of science or engineering is that it might as well be magic. Yet he still comments.

    1. Tony agrees with the really smart experts. That makes him a really smart expert. You know that really smart people get their news from the Daily Report? So if you get your news from the Daily Report then you’re like really smart and stuff. You know?

      1. Tony and climate change posts are probably the most egregious examples of a poster so far out of his element that he (she?) might as well hire a few thousand monkeys to type his posts.

    2. probably has never written a line of code in his life

      It is so freaking cute when you computer nerds get on here and pretend to be scientists.

      Maybe I am a total moron. Which raises the question, what’s your fucking excuse?

      1. Yeah. People with degrees in things like Computer Science don’t know shit about science.

        1. Not so much in my experience. Lots of things are called science inappropriately. Though I do struggle to explain why so many fucking retards become computer nerds. Maybe something to do with autism?

          1. So we don’t have to work next to idiots like you at fast food jobs.

      2. Have you ever solved a PDE? Do you even know what one is without Googling it?

        Computer nerds? So you pick up on that one domain to cherry pick for you idiotic arguments. In my career, I’ve done atmospheric physics (mostly scattering trying to detect stuff in aerosol clouds), IR sensor work (where you have to know things about the atmosphere, optics, FPA materials, etc.), pattern recognition work using techniques that are very similar to the Principal Component Analysis that Mann butchered, synthetic terrain development for multi-band sensor simulations, etc.

        I’ve done the physics, the engineering, and the coding. There are plenty of posters here who have done real engineering, which is just applied science (or usually refined science, since occasionally the theory does not survive the crucible of reality intact, so us engineers have to fix some of the crap we get from Academia). To you though…MAGIC!!!!

        1. What’s hilarious is that he just automagically assumes that coding makes you a computer nerd.

        2. You’re glorified plumbers. What you don’t seem to get is my slapdash understanding of the literature on this subject is demonstrably more complete than your partisan agenda horseshit, however allegedly backed up by sciency-sounding credentials you may possess. But as I’ve indicated, I’ve known far too many creationist computer geeks and engineers to simply trust that you are also well-rounded thinkers, as scientists are.

          1. Tony|7.7.17 @ 4:16AM|#
            “You’re glorified plumbers.”

            From the guy who has managed to turn ‘write “S” on the blackboard 10 times’ into a career.

  21. No mention of the Climategate leak, which showed quite plainly that the Hockey Team were doing exactly what Christy charges them with?

    -jcr

  22. One thing that needs to be done is to go back to the original collected temperature data from stations world wide and collect it all *without any mucking about*.

    If a station was moved, its record at the old location ends and the new location must be treated as a new station, not a continuance of the old as the warmists have repeatedly done. There are many stations that have been moved to warmer/dryer locations yet have been kept on the records as recording temperatures at their original locations.

    Information on local conditions and equipment changes for each station should be noted, as close as possible to when the change occurred.

    Changes in the precision of measurement for each station should be noted. Was a thermometer initially read in 1/4 degrees then later changed to tenths?

    Get the RAW data, along with as detailed of notes on affecting local changes as possible – then everyone can start with the same *facts* – what were the temperatures recorded throughout the history of each location.

    That’s the sort of data set (however close to original recording it was) that the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia had collected but refused to share so other researchers could check their work. They only wanted to share their ‘adjusted’ data after having run it through their HADCRUT program. From the HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file we know what sort of ‘corrections’ and other tricks were used.

    1. All the changes and different recording methods over the years and locations make it very difficult to create a single ‘viewpoint’ of worldwide temperature data. Attempting to ‘smooth out’ all those disparate point-source recordings to cover ‘nearby’ locations many miles/kilometers away is simple wild guessing with math.

      To get a high level view, make a global map that can be animated over time to display the raw recorded data. The geolocations of each station (during the time each has existed) would be marked with highlighted dots. Expand circles from each, with notes that the farther from each station the greater the uncertainty. Also make it ‘flare’ the station locations when they’re taken out of service and newly installed. Each location should also be clickable to popup information on the recording equipment, method, immediate environmental conditions etc.

      Such a program would be a complex job to create, but as long as it’s used to visually display the raw, original data, it would be a very useful tool – though the sorts of researchers who don’t want the general public to see the historic mess the data is in wouldn’t like it.

      1. I’m not even sure that the underlying assumption that an average of Earth’s temperature is useful is true, honestly.

        It’s not that I don’t trust experts as a general rule, but I can say that I don’t trust doomsayers who claim to understand one of the most complicated systems ever observed by man. Tell me the weather tomorrow with perfect accuracy, and I’ll believe that you might have an idea of what the climate might do in a year. If you’re right in a year, we can try two years.

        And yeah, ‘the climate isn’t the weather’ but…they aren’t right on the climate either. And even if they were, that’s no guarantee they’re right about the cause.

        What we do know is the solution; killing many billions of humans directly, and several million more as second order consequences. All of the other ‘solutions’ to the supposed problem are not ‘better’ than the alternatives, they’re just a shuffling around of the exact same pieces, only with more human calamity and disaster.

        1. It is kinda ironic that if you disagree with climate ideology then you are a “denier,” and if you take climate ideology to its logical conclusion you will see human death on a scale so as to make the Hitler look like a piker.

          1. If the evidence disagrees with you, how do explain that? How does your favorite ideas hold up to reality?

            1. renewableguy|7.7.17 @ 12:59PM|#
              “If the evidence disagrees with you, how do explain that? How does your favorite ideas hold up to reality?”

              If that was the case, you might have a point, weenie.

              1. Ohhhh the anger you have. Hate it out brother.

                1. I can’t imagine why people get tired of being fed bullshit from people like you.

    2. Scientists correct data in all the fields. Climate is not exception.

      1. “Scientists correct data in all the fields.”

        Yes, and fiddling with it because it doesn’t match your argument isn’t science:
        “Leaked climate change emails scientist ‘hid’ data flaws”
        https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2010/feb/01/ leaked-emails-climate-jones-Chinese
        (take the spaces out)

        1. The change to represent accuracy. That is all they do. It stands up to peer reviewed pressure. Denier peer review just would work simply because denial is not about reality. Its about your driven agenda.

          1. renewableguy|7.7.17 @ 11:33AM|#
            “The change to represent accuracy. That is all they do. It stands up to peer reviewed pressure.”

            Except the peers they disallowed from reviewing it.
            ——————————————
            “Denier peer review just would work simply because denial is not about reality. Its about your driven agenda.”

            As mentioned somewhere, you have obviously never questioned anything handed you by ‘authority’.
            You might even say you are easily lead, sheep.

            1. You sir are out on a limb and sawing it off. The evidence just isn’t there. Show me. Show me yyour foundation. Do this based in science rather than conspiracy.

              1. Did you short your keyboard from spittle?
                I’m not sure WIH that means, weenie.

                1. You don’t understand foundation. Do I get that correct?

                  1. You don’t understand ‘confirmation bias’, warmist.

  23. https://goo.gl/7AvBen

    One sure sign of ghg warming is the lower stratosphere cools. If it were the sun warming the earth then the stratosphere would be warming.

    1. https://goo.gl/fjZMdk

      Glacier thickness is decreasing. With rising temperature of earth, we would expect the majority of the ice on earth to be decreasing. And it is.

      1. Skeptics aren’t denying that the earth has been warming and is likely to continue to do so. Implying that they are doing so is a strawman argument. Skeptics dispute that the warming trend will amount to much by 2100.

        1. More importantly, I’m pretty sure I’m among quite a few who are not at all surprised that the climate it warming, but well enough educated to realize it is not the first time it has happened and humanity did just fine without giving up total control of our lives to those who really don’t have any solutions available anyhow, let a alone any shown predictions.
          “Well, millions of people are going to have to move! What about THAT?!?!
          In 1870, Chicago’s population was 300,000
          In 1970, it was 3,400,000
          No government agency moved them there, folks. People looked around and said “let’s go to Chicago” before the dimbulb Dems screwed the pooch.
          http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/…..icago.html
          ‘renewableguy” (how clever…), that’s not a Wiki link.

          1. Sevo|7.6.17 @ 6:54PM|#

            More importantly, I’m pretty sure I’m among quite a few who are not at all surprised that the climate it warming, but well enough educated to realize it is not the first time it has happened and humanity did just fine without giving up total control of our lives to those who really don’t have any solutions available anyhow,

            You don’t like the solution? You don’t like liberals? You don’t like the change for personal reasons you won’t share? You don’t have to love anything that you don’t want to. CO2 is the driver of our changing climate. That is reality. Science shows some pretty big changes down the road in climate. Gonna shake the dice and find out I’m right? Can you even man up to your shortcomings on how you make your decisions?

            1. OH, OH LOOK! Bold!

              “You don’t like the solution?You don’t like liberals?”
              Both are correct.

              “You don’t like the change for personal reasons you won’t share?”
              Correct>

              “You don’t have to love anything that you don’t want to. CO2 is the driver of our changing climate. That is reality. Science shows some pretty big changes down the road in climate. Gonna shake the dice and find out I’m right? Can you even man up to your shortcomings on how you make your decisions?”
              MY shortcomings? After you post that word-salad claiming to be something or other.
              Stuff it, shit-bag. You don’t own me, you have no right to my life.

              1. Some really good sputtering. Too bad its totally useless in debating. ou reallyy have no content that is usefull. Useless would be more appropriate.

                1. Learn how to spell, dimwit.

        2. https://goo.gl/VX8J93

          Climate sensitivity is is big risk if you bet low. It is in many studies coming out higher. Whatever way it goes, you don’t want to bet low and its high. The destruction of life on earth will get pretty grim.

          1. renewableguy|7.7.17 @ 12:36PM|#
            “https://goo.gl/VX8J93
            Climate sensitivity is is big risk if you bet low.”

            Idiot never heard of this:
            “Q. What is the precautionary principle?”
            http://www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html

            No, I do not subscribe to the precautionary principle. Please climb under your bed after you check for boogey men, weenie.

            1. Because you act mean, then does that help your cause. Can’t argue evidence from our own incompetence. YYou lack the skill there bud. If you want to have sex, it takes a hardon, and right now you are pretty limp.

            2. Because you act mean, then does that help your cause. Can’t argue evidence from our own incompetence. YYou lack the skill there bud. If you want to have sex, it takes a hardon, and right now you are pretty limp.

              1. Go masturbate somewhere else, fucko.

    2. Could you post links that aren’t shortened? It’s wise not to trust those around here.

      1. They’re all to Wiki; don’t waste your time.

        1. Yeah, I was just curious about those claims about stratospheric temperatures since it didn’t make sense to me.

          And after looking at the particular link itself, it’s talking about cooling related to volcanic particulate matter which makes a lot more sense. That isn’t even a GHG, it’s literal physical material blocking energy.

          1. It’s a link he found in another BBS, and one of the ‘authorities’ said it proved something or other.
            This twit has been here before and gets busted lying or proving the opposite of his claims every time.
            18-20, lefty, spends most of his time reading lefty crap on the web, never questions it.
            Probably never questioned anything in his entire life; a useful idiot.

  24. https://goo.gl/4UAzYN

    Thermal expansion only of sea level rise. THe more co2 the more sea level will rise in the same amount of time.

    1. Ya know, you really have a problem. Well, actually two of them.
      Wiki is NOT a source, unless you’re some weenie who really isn’t familiar with the concept of “evidence”.
      And then for all the ‘scienceness’ of the catastrophists, NOT ONE prediction has yet been shown to be true.
      If you are doing science in one subject of the other, the first thing honest people doing science in the same subject want to see is reproducible results.
      Unfortunately, NOT ONE of the catastrophists has yet to find ONE BIT of specifically-predicted results, let alone anything like reproducible results.
      You, Tony, commie-kid and the rest of the watermellons want to tell the world how to live and yet you have ZERO evidence to support your claims you should be allowed to do so.
      Shove it up your ass.

      1. You are agenda driven Sevo. Wiki only brings in sourced material. If the source is wrong, then discuss it.

        1. renewableguy|7.7.17 @ 11:35AM|#
          “You are agenda driven Sevo.”
          You’re full of shit.

          “Wiki only brings in sourced material. If the source is wrong, then discuss it.”
          You made the claim; prove it. With evidence.
          It’s not my job to do your homework.

          1. Ok mr attitude.

            I already presented evidence. You aren’t willing to argue from an evidence point of view.

            Its like yyou just can’t and won’t.

            1. Idiot leftist thinks wikipedia is ‘evidence’.

  25. We cannot have Red Teams, I mean climate change is a settled science. Don’t rock the boat.

    1. If the evidence is in to come to a conclusion, then that is what is happening.

      1. renewableguy|7.7.17 @ 11:36AM|#
        “If the evidence is in to come to a conclusion, then that is what is happening.”

        Evidenced of what, specifically?

        1. Human caused warming. The sun didn’t do it. Natural has been ruled out. All evidence points to human caused ghg warming.

  26. The problem with statisticians and statistics is that 71% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.