Global Warming Hoaxers Caught, AGAIN, Forging Data to Push Nonsense

[M]

Source; https://constitution.com/global-warming-hoaxers-caught-again-forgin...

The liberal left has been manipulating data in their global warming scheme for decades, and they have been caught once again in 2017.

While the idea behind “global warming” seems simple enough, the leftists who tout the theory as reality often leave off massive bits of information that refute their own claims for the sake of continuing their bizarre charade.  The reason behind this push for belief in the absurd theory is a consolidation of power on a global scale.

If the entire planet it suddenly facing the same, global “enemy”, it will become extremely simple for world governments to create legislative cabals, such as the Paris Climate Accord, in which the most powerful men and women overseeing industry, pollution, and waste management will be far more corruptible than they would be otherwise.  This behooves the overwhelmingly liberal globalist movement and the architects of their international power grab.  Men like George Soros simply rely on the global warming hoax to continue in order to influence the world for his own good.

Another ruse by these leftist lunatics has been exposed in recent days, however, poking even more holes into the harebrained idea that science just can’t seem to back up.

“Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.

“The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).

“But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.

“The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.”

This is far from the first time that global warming scammers have used bunk science to attempt to fool us into believing in their incredibly impossible theories.

Furthermore, we mustn’t forget that for decades before Al Gore arrived on the scene, that greenhouse gas emissions that liberal currently believe cause global warming were thought to be the harbingers of a new ice age, creating a similar panic in the 1970’s.

Commentary by; Roy S.  Mallman

What is it going to take to educate the "millennials" who came of age during the Obama Administration believing that this was the way this country really was, where identity politics, racism, and "the us against them" mentality reined supreme. They have not had the experience to know that this whole "Global Warming" alarmist hysteria has been around for hundreds of years in one way or another. In the 1970's it was "Global Cooling" and it forecast massive world wide starvation due to cooler temperatures and thus shorter growing seasons. It forecast the end of humanity by 2015 if we did not ban fluorocarbons which were depleting the ozone layer in our atmosphere. We promptly banned Freon and almost all chemical refrigerants at a cost of billions in additional research and the loss of jobs to find substitute refrigerants (which flat do not work half as well.), to replace Freon. The fact is that just recently, a year or so ago, the hole in the ozone layer over the Arctic is slightly starting to mend, which should tell you the ban had nothing to do with it. This was also a product of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the same culprits behind this "Global Warming" hoax. This is nothing but agenda driven fraud! There are hundreds of facts that refute this hysteria. Follow the money. These charades have made professional environmentalism and an industry generating billions for the perpetrators. Do your independent research!

[T Amnesia]

Hmmmm...  Is this site a landfill for your rubbish, M?  This drivel has been here for a month with only 5 views and no comments.  It's obvious that you are being left behind with your outdated mistrust of real science.  It is painful for you to read but here it is; proof that these clowns are wrong.

Can Albert/Alberto Parker/Boretti Handle the Math?

Grant Foster

July 20, 2017

I only recently found out that Albert Parker/Alberto Boretti and C.D. Ollier published a “Discussion” of my paper with Patrick Brown about the analysis of sea level time series. You can get your own copy of their paper here.

What, you may wonder, is Parker/Boretti and Ollier’s method to look for acceleration of sea level? It’s contained in equations (1) and (2) of their paper. The first is this:

This is just the OLS (ordinary least squares) estimate of the slope from fitting a straight line to data points j through k. It always worries me when scientific papers give this equation, because it suggests that the authors are so unfamiliar with something as simple as least squares regression that they feel the need to “explain” it to the reader.

But at least it’s correct. What Parker/Boretti and Ollier say about it is not:

If j=1 (the oldest record) and k is variable, then
SLR_1,k is the estimation of the relative rate of rise at the time x_k.

Let’s find out, shall we?

Consider some artificial data, defined by the simple equation , for 101 t values from 0 to 1. We already know what the slope is at each moment () and what the acceleration is (=2 for all times), and we won’t add any noise so the method should diagnose the slope without error.

What does Parker/Boretti and Ollier’s method say the slope is at each moment of time? This:

The solid line is their method’s slope estimate, the dashed lines are the 95% confidence limits according to OLS. Now let me add a red line showing the true slope at each moment of time:

Wha-wha-wha-what??? The Parker/Boretti and Ollier method got it wrong. At every moment of time. In spite of the fact that the data are noise-free.

That’s because their method does not give “the estimation of the relative rate of rise at the time x_k” (remember they’re using x to represent the time, while I tend to use t). It gives an estimate of the average rate of rise over the entire time interval, not “at the time x_k.” If we had to assign this to a moment of time rather than an interval, the only logical choice would be the mid-point of the time interval (for evenly spaced data), not the end (the time x_k).

If we use their method to estimate the acceleration, we get the same value at all times — as we should — but it’s the wrong value. Their method estimates the acceleration is equal to 1, when we already know it’s equal to 2.

How bad is it, when their method of estimating slope and acceleration can’t get it right even for noise-free data?

Parker/Boretti and Ollier don’t actually have a lot to say about my and Brown’s paper. My guess is: the math was over their heads. Way over.

_________________________________-

____________________________________

Did you understand that, Officer M?  It says that Albert Parker (aka; Alberto Boretti ) and Clifford Ollier are wrong.  They don't know what they are talking about. 

Parker (or Boretti, whichever name he's going under today) is a mechanical engineer who once worked for the 3rd rate auto company, Fiat, as an engine researcher.

Cliff Ollier is a geologist and "soil scientist" and a member of a sham climate denial organization consisting of mostly retired engineers and scientists from the mining, manufacturing and construction industries. 

You need to improve your own investigation criteria and report on bona-fide, peer-reviewed science and disregard fake scientists that misrepresent the facts, intentionally deceive readers, as well as misrepresenting their own credentials and abilities to even comment on real science.

Good day, Sir.

[M]

T,

It could also mean that most of the members agree with my presentation and have nothing to add.

Explain why the computer models that are almost the exclusive data base for the Global warming are not panning out in the real world? I don't deny that there is Global Warming, but it is due to solar mechanics. The effect that human actions have on it are in the neighborhood of less than 3% overall.Neither do I deny Climate change, it's called weather patterns, and yes they are affected much more by human activities. The stripping of the Rain Forest for cattle industry, besides destroying a multitude of ;potential medicines, and leaving the land destroyed, has been shown to have a major effect on Weather patterns over the last 120 years. Tell me why the progressives are not jumping on that bandwagon to get it to stop seeing all the VERIFIABLE/OBSERVABLE damage it has already caused.

[T Amnesia]

Most Members?  It was only looked at 4 times before I pulled it up!!  What I've noticed is there's the same 4 people on this site EVER.  Usually, when I log in, I'm the only one - for hours on end!  Anyway.... you posted Global Warming Hoaxers...and call global warming a "bizarre charade", but now you state " I don't deny that there is Global Warming."  What flavor of BS is THAT???

I think the computer models are panning out.  I also think that human actions play a much larger part in climate change than the 3% figure you stated.  Do you have a credible source for that number? 

Why are progressives not jumping on a bandwagon?  I don't know if they are or aren't.  That assumes there is a bandwagon, or a movement already underway regarding the loss of Rain Forest for them to get involved in.  Are the conservatives on that bandwagon?  Please give us (the other 3 people here)  your sources for that opinion, as well.  Unless of course it's simply your opinion.

[T Amnesia]

So what's with this web site?  I can't reply to your response on the LIARS thread, but I can over here.  So, this is my response to yours which said that I failed to prove my point.

YOU had stated, " I cite the trend that showcases the dramatic closing of retail stores around the USA. While the press has not attributed that phenomenon to the record sales on the internet as the causative factor with increasing profit margins by those stores while cutting their operating costs, provide innuendo that it's Trumps fiscal agenda that is causing the closures."

I gave 6 recent examples where the media DID attribute store closings to the internet and asked you for citations where the press did NOT.  You came up with NOTHING an. Nobody is making any innuendo that it is Trump's fault.

Seriously, is your memory beginning to fade a bit?  Because your responses don't match your previous replies.  You say one thing, then totally change it in the very next reply.  These things happen when one gets to your age, which by now must be at least north of 75.

[M]

T. 

Remember the rules against personal attacks? Attack my agendas and beliefs not my person. I checked with the website providers and they can't find anything wrong that would have prevented you from commenting on the liars thread. Please inform me if you have the same trouble again.

M

[T Amnesia]

I said, "Seriously."  I am concerned about you, not attacking you.  I know my memory is going, and it scares the hell out of me.  There's not one damn good thing about getting old.

[M]

Actually there is one good thing about getting old, "It beats the hell out of the alternative."

[M]

T. Read my reply again and maybe you will understand what I said, maybe not.

[marrand]

M,
It’s amazing how disoriented a skilled mathematicians can become when they start playing with their favorite toys: statistics. Those who forget its limits almost always go astray. Statistics is a wonderful, neat way of presenting huge amounts of data of what has already happened. We need it and use it. But problem arises when those who exhibit their virtuosity in handling the past pretend to be able to forcast the future.

All mathematical and computer models involve assumptions. Often they are wrong, but the assumers ignore that. Their conclusions are only as good as their assumptions. A good example is the assumption that the emissivity of earth surface is 1. This value has been used to calculate the average temperature of earth surface from radiative flux until about 2008. Later the temperautures were recalculated assuming variable values of emissivity.

And now we get to your reference by Parker and Ollier. Those who don’t like their conclusions will purposely mistate their assumption. In this case, the SLR equation is the suspect - not the equation but its use, claiming the authors are unfamiliar with least squares regression. This is phony. The key assumption by Parker and Ollier is the introduction of sinusoidal variation added to the least squares regression, to prove, in their minds, that any acceleration in the rise of sea levels is not really there, that it’s merely periodic. Thus this reference is only as good as its assumption.

And similar problem exists with the rebuttal of Parker and Ollier. To prove acceleration another very questionable assumption had to be made, and I quote: “We will assume that the vairance of the noise r2 is still constant through time”. By noise the statistiians mean statistical noise (random uncertanty) due measurement errors. But how were sea levels measured? With instruments of course. Over what period of time? Over centuries, of course. In order for the variance of noise to be constant one must also assume that the qualitiy of the insturments were constant as well for almost 200 years. After all (this may befuddle the office mathematians), the major case of random error in measurements is the variations in the sensors themselves. You see M, as time go by, people get smarter and make better instruments, reducing some errors, introducing others. So, this objection is only as good as its assumption.

However, regardless what both articles are claiming, they are both missing the key point: the cause of global warming. The politically motivated ones insist humans are the cause by insisting that correlation means causation. But they merely state it, not prove it. Extrapolation of past measurements is no proof. Correlation with increaing CO2 is no proof. Polls of scientists is no proof.

What proof we need? Demonstrate by experiments, to be independently reporoduced by many, that a change of CO2 level from something like 300 ppm to 500 ppm will cause a non-negliglible temperature increase. And to all the climate warming alarmists, those who insist on human guilt, I say keep your silence until you provide the world with verified experimental proof. Ok, if not silent, then at least don't try to eliminate (or significantly reduce) the use of fossil fuels without real proof that this sacrifce is worth it.

[Virginia Foulk]

Wish I'd seen this topic earlier. But getting old, and enjoying it and my grandchildren and 2 great grandchildren,  plus working with the Kids Ranch was taking up lots of my time.  Still love to read what is posted here, learn a lot about politics, people, science and interactions between right, left, and those lost in space. Getting old? Yeah but luckily my health is still great. And I can still make sense out of most of the posts and enjoy learning from every one. My Norsky ancestors, lived long past their 80s and 90s so here's to growing even older.

Again, M, Marrand, Kevin, Thomas and others - thanks for all you discover and share.