Who Do You Believe?

We are about to enter another summer of ‘record breaking heat.’ Or are we? Last year all sorts of records for the hottest temperature on record were broken. Or were they? There is a huge amount of misinformation being shoveled out. It is difficult to find out who is providing the information and find the actual data to check who is spinning what. Who is lying, who is telling the truth?

Politicians are hoping people are too lazy and ignorant to catch-on to what is being done. To survive people will supposedly pay any tax.

In 2012 there were 356+ new highest-temperature-on-record claims. By the measure they used, that is true. But, by the same standard of measure there were 10,000+ lowest temperature records set in 2012. Which did you hear about? Were those numbers for the year or for a month or a week? Did you know those records are all on weather stations that have only been in existance since 1947 and later? Did you know that most of the worlds highest temperature records were set in the 1930’s? …and remain unbroken to today?

Either side of the debate can spin the numbers without lying to mislead. For more information on what the facts are and what you will likely be seeing this summer check out IceCap’s Blog article: Just the facts ma’am.

How hot has Death Valley been this year? And in the past? Can we accurately compare today’s temperatures with the 100 year old high of 134°F? The answers, well really questions, are here: Anniversary of Death Valley Highest Temperature. You will start to see some of the problems climatologists deal with. You decide if today’s measurements are accurate or misleading.

23 thoughts on “Who Do You Believe?

  1. I don’t really know about the USA because I don’t live there but I lived through Australia’s angry summer – http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-angry-summer/ – where it was fortunate that a massive conflagration did not occur. Australia’s weather is historically closely tied to the La Nina/El Nino effect. For such an effect to take place without a strong effect is unusual.

    • On the face of it the page you link to looks impressive. Try this one at the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/earth/2012-was-hottest-year-ever-in-us.html?_r=0 . It also is rather impressive. It is true, but misleading.

      Research will show that records being considered as ‘record breaking’ only reach back to the 1940’s. Additionally how temperature is measures and recording stations are maintained has changed from when records were set. Look at http://www.surfacestations.org/ for a good example of the factors affecting temperature recording stations.

      Have you checked the records for your measuring stations? Is your government doing an honest job of reporting? So you have anything like Surface Stations in your country?

      Here we find that in the set of 2012-record-breakers only stations placed since 1947 are being considered record breakers. Also, those setting new highs are in cities and located near parking lots, buildings, air conditioner exhausts, placed on roof tops, and suffer a myriad of other distortions that push readings to the high side. Few recording stations meet the standards set by NOAA for official weather recording stations.

      That you are basing climate change on your personal experience, limits the sample data. Were you around in the 1930’s and if so, is your memory really good enough to provide a reliable comparison across 80+ years… and if we assume you needed to be at least 15 to have a memory of events in the 1930’s, you’re 95± years old…

      If you are not checking the location of the sensors and how they are maintained, you are being played.
      That La Nino/El Nino affect weather is known and has been part of our weather cycle for eons. Scientists are still trying to define the effect and the factors that affect it. As yet they can’t show that it has changed beyond the centuries old cycles. Lots of people say it has. But, there is no good data for a long enough period to know.

      • Australia’s reference climate station network is established by three key principles:
        * high quality and long climate records,
        * a location in an area away from large urban centres, and
        * a reasonable likelihood of continued, long-term operation.
        They are listed at www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml. Many of these recording centres reach back 100 years.

        Australia has a very changeable climate, hence the ‘heartbreak years’ as new settlers were suckered into the interior by a number of wet years only to have their hopes dashed. Australia’s climate is changing, possibly it changes every century or so, but it is changing.

        • Climate has always changed.A 100 year cycle would be unusually short. Most of Earth’s cycles are measured in terms of 40,000 to 100,000 years.

          Using the BoM’s data the record temperatures for old historical stations that have been around 100+ years or so, Austria’s highest ever is 47.6C (117.68F) in 1947. But, their data is somewhat inconsistent. If one sorts the data via the site another way the same stations may show the highest ever in 1914. That tends to happen depending on how they applied adjustments. But, it is not what one hears being published today. The same appears to be true here and in Aus.

          Which is why when one hears a record has been broken they need to lookup the station with the new high and look to see when the station was put into service. A station put in service yesterday can report the highest ever since recording started, today.

          I agree climate is changing. But, it always has.

          Climategate I, II, and III are about the fraudulent adjustment of weather station data. For instance the Boulia Airport recording station has been there since 1888. The satellite photos show the runway as paved and a rather modern building with trees around it and probably AC. Where was the station in 1888 and now? When did they pave the runway? Did that create a spike in temperature? Was the temp sensor moved when the building went up? How are these factors adjusted for?

          One must make a request and pay for that information. If you look at SurfaceStations.org, you find the type of problems we have with stations. Do you think things are different in Australia? I doubt it.

          When we are looking for a trend measured in tenths of a degree, such things matter. I suspect you think BoM is doing an honest job of reporting. May be even the local news stations. My point is that as one digs into things, we find out the media is being manipulated and often the ‘scientists’ that are supposed to be providing facts are faking.

  2. Can’t say I’ve ever heard a political argument over what my local weather station claims. So can’t speak on any of that.

    Most I hear about and am concerned with is the whole thing with the 10,257 peer-reviewed earth scientists being asked the question whether mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels and whether or not humans were significant contributors. 30% responded, 97% of them said yes to the first question, 83% said yes to the second. On the second question, if considering only those that specialize in climate science that percentage jumps to 97%.

    There’s much I don’t understand since naturally all things can’t be my chosen profession and line of expertise. I gotta punt on things like carbon dating mummies and whether this and that from photos on Mars are aliens or just rocks. What I can do though as a citizen is vet and figure out who’s most qualified and honest in their findings, and then make decisions about personal lifestyle, supported causes and who I vote for based on them.

    In short, ’til someone can explain why the vast majority of trained, experienced experts on climate are wrong for saying the earth is getting warmer compared to hundreds of years ago and we are the cause, I gotta roll with them.

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    • Tell me how an inanimate object, like a thermometer/weather station, makes a claim… If you can’t keep your language clear, you can’t keep your thinking clear. Or were you trying to spin the subject?

      The points I am making is that those reading the devices and using the reporting are being less than honest. I am amazed that one of the most important decisions of our time you choose to leave to others to make.

      Those uneducated in a specific field do tend to make it about people. They decide who they can trust. But, this is about basic math, some statistics, and simple common sense. It is not difficult to decide who is doing what. Did you look at Surface Stations and bother to spend the time to see what they did? It will give you a great reference point for deciding who you can believe.

      You have accepted the 97% of scientists are of a mind that forms a ‘consensus’ that warming is manmade and unnatural. You ignore that good science is based on the ‘scientific method’ and not consensus. Do you know that scientists once were of a consensus the world was flat? Scientists were once certain black-skinned people had no soul, were less than human?

      • The Debendox Debacle – numerous lying scientists. http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders
      • Climategate I, II, and III – Fakegate – look ‘em up.
      • Renowned Danish University Brain Scientist Suspected of Fake Research http://www.scancomark.com/Competitiveness/renowned-Danish-University-brain-scientist-suspected-of-fake-research.html
      • Top 10 Scientific Mistakes http://science.discovery.com/strange-science/10-science-mistakes.htm

      These are just a few of the reasons we do NOT depend on consensus but require proof via the scientific method.

      But, even the ‘97%-agree’ is a spin. More and more scientists are disagreeing http://www.petitionproject.org/ and computer models are falling http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/14971-global-warming-computer-models-fail-as-temps-remain-stable to prove accurate. But, to get back to the 97%… See: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them http://sppiblog.org/news/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them-2 . Then look up where Obama and others come up with that 97% number.

      This is the problem you run into when dealing with personalities. The debate of who said what is endless and a deliberate tactic. When someone blatantly lies it so confuses people it becomes easy to play them. People are busy arguing about he said/she said and ignoring the facts. It is for reasons like this that the scientific method was adopted in the 17th century.

      If you listen to the warmers (that supposedly make up 97%) they refer in their writing to consensus. Skeptics like me point you to the real data, observations, and failures of the warming hypothesizes.

      The politicians hope people will do just what you are doing; go with opinion over facts and be too lazy and think it too hard to figure out and give up.

      Numerous people met your requirement to explain why… but your favored propaganda source isn’t reporting it, so you don’t know about it. Many more have documented why it is not a majority of scientists that buy into AGW, I have pointed you to the material that shows there has been no GLOBAL warming since about 1998, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html and this article is just a summary in a major newspaper. The scientists in Russia, Chinese, and India are predicating cooling and much colder weather for the next 30 to 50 years. But, I’ll bet you haven’t heard of that.

      • You throw around the word consensus like its a bad thing. There’s consensus on the Earth not being flat, is that reason I should be skeptical the Earth isn’t?

        Debate is healthy but debate tends to come to an end. It reopens if it has to, but I think its fine for a person like me to defer to scientists once they reach something like 97% consensus. ’cause no matter how high that percentage gets, there’s still going to be a Flat Earth Society for everything.

        I’m also well aware scientists have been wrong in the past. That isn’t reason to distrust them, that’s reason to have more faith in the process of science. Study leads to new findings, findings lead to new study, so on and so forth.

        Inclusive in those 97% of scientists are some that once strongly dissented against the idea of the Earth getting warmer and humans being a factor. Why should I discredit them because they’ve changed their mind now? They’ve progressed,. If 97% believe tomorrow for whatever reason that they were wrong, that was cool too, the fact remains though I only have one life to live and can’t see myself fitting in the amount of time it takes to become a climate scientist.

        So to answer your question “Who do you believe?”, I gotta go with “basic math, some statistics, and simple common sense”, and trust that those devoting their lives to this subject know a lot more about it than I can learn from googling.

        • You obviously did not read the material I linked to, you still use a bogus 97% without rebuttal of the point or the material I referred to. That is rather closed minded.

          You also ignored my challenge to show how an inanimate object can make a claim or answer the question of whether you intended to spin the subject. Such lack of debate on a subject usually means a debater has no rebuttal to make and by default concedes the point, trying to move on to a point they may be able to make.

          I have not said or implied consensus is a bad thing. I did put it in perspective and demonstrated why thinking people do not use consensus when use of the scientific method is called for.

          In intelligent examination of any subject in science debate is to be ENCOURAGED and continues until a theory is well proved. Even then minds return and question the assumptions.

          Climate observations are not supporting warming theories. They are showing that warming has stopped years ago while CO2 continued to increase. The computer models based on warming theories are failing to predict temperature correctly by large amounts. I linked to a good starting place for anyone examining that evidence. You fail to address those points. I assume you can’t.

          That you bring the issue of ‘trust.’ You do that in the face of my links to scientist that are lying and faking research. Do you even know what Climategate I, II, and III and Fakegate are?

          Scientific research and proofs must be independently reproduced by others. There is no consideration of trust in the scientific method. Look at the history of the discovery of astatine. A line of maybe honest mistakes were made as people tried to claim its discovery. There is no trust or distrust principals in the scientific method. Berkley was the first to discover it in a way that others could reproduce. That PROVED the existence. There is only the search for scientific truth.

          You continue to try and argue for basing a decision on personality and opinion on a subject that is fact based. If you really want to go that way, find the real numbers and list of names of scientists that are changing opinions. You seem afraid to question the 97% number and cannot even answer questions regarding it. Look to see who the scientists are, and what their field of expertise is, and why they might be changing and how many are changing in which direction. Use that information to support your position. Otherwise, you just have another uninformed opinion.

          Consider: In the 1990’s IPPC papers (WG1) the claim was made that 2,500 UN scientists ‘agreed’ global warming was manmade. It was a popular quote until a FOIA (Freedom of Info Act) request in 2007 (?) forced the UN to make available the peer review papers used in the official report. (Reference: http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/09/ipcc-2500-scientists-myth.html ) Those papers are still online, so you can check them out. So, how many scientists actually ‘agreed’ warming existed and was manmade? Five and only one, that did not have a significant financial conflict of interest. Check it out. The UN started out lying about warming and its causes.

          Warming, the change in temperature, is not a difficult subject to understand. One number is either smaller, the same, or larger than another. Understanding how temperature is and was measured is easy enough too. Deciding that comparing temperatures measured in a grassy field and on top of a black tar roof or 1m from an air conditioning exhaust is ridiculous, requires no mental giant. Even the statistics are easy enough high school students can handle them.

          Trying to understand “why” temperature changes globally is way complex. But, it does not take a PHD or even a master’s degree to see scientists haven’t gotten close to understanding the processes.

          Are you really trying to admit you are too simple to understand such basic things? Or is it being lazy and too apathetic to be informed and participate in one of the great decisions of your age? Or… are you just too invested in your position?

          • Lotta assumptions to address.

            1. I didn’t read any of the links.

            I read ’em, I just didn’t see any reason to make the same leaps as you. Like the link supposedly debunking the 97% consensus; 7 scientists among thousands saying they weren’t represented 100% accurately isn’t reason for me to disbelieve the whole of the findings. Show me thousands saying they were misrepresented, sure.

            2. I ignore your challenges to explain this and that.

            Yes I did, but not to be rude or even to try and debunk you. In exchange, I explained how I’m not a climate scientist whatsoever which is why I do the next best thing- defer to better minds on the subject of whether this and that is relevant or not; climate scientists.

            If you call that spin then I guess. But you did ask “Who do you believe?”, I just answered. If it was instead “Debate me on specifics of climate science” I wouldn’t have commented as I am not a climate scientist.

            3. I believe consensus is a swap in for proper science.

            Not sure how its an either/or with science or consensus. Consensus has followed the science much in the same way as discovering whether or not the Earth was the center of the universe.

            Eventually a majority of scientists are simply done with a topic. That’s always how its been regardless of whether a skeptical few are willing to let go of an issue or not. Like I said, there still is a Flat Earth Society, but the existence of it doesn’t make me dumb for not setting aside years of my life to decide to start sailing around, or to the edge, of the world myself.

            I know the study of weather and climate isn’t exactly analogous to that and I don’t mean to demean skepticism. We’re still driving into tornados to try and understand what’s right before our eyes so I’m 100% with you that scientists can be wrong about a whole lot, but that fact isn’t excuse to not make decisions like voting based on present consensus of the vast, vast, 90-percentile majority.

            Also I totally agree that despite consensus, if new disputing evidence is found consensus is worth breaking and minds should be changed. Like I said, if 97% of earth scientists changed their mind tomorrow I would totally believe them. That hasn’t happened yet though.

            4. I’m possibly too simple, lazy, apathetic or invested in my position to….not believe in man made global warming?

            You said it yourself that even with the best education and life long experience, scientists can get it wrong. But education and experience isn’t for naught, it does dictate who’s best qualified so again, “Who do you believe?” The best qualified. The only position I’m invested in is deferring to better, trustworthy minds on matters so very very complex.

            As far as the “great decisions of my age”, that’s out of scope. Science is science, the politics subsequent of it are totally different things and dependent upon particulars of whether man-made global warming is significant enough to care about or not, when we should care about it, and if we do care about it what to do, how to do it, etc. etc.

            • 1. Ezra I have trouble believing you read the links when they provide such compelling evidence that the 97% is a fictitious number spun for political purposes. One doesn’t need to make any leaps, thus I continue to seriously doubt your claim that you read them.

              2. On this point you have me wondering if you even comprehend what I’ve written in this thread. …you’re not a scientist… I am telling and have told you one does not need to be. This is simple stuff.

              Most people know what propaganda is and look to find ways around it to the truth. Deferring to others is just gullibility.

              3. On this point you may well have convinced me you are not bright enough to be in this conversation.

              The center of the universe was decided by rational thinking, math, and an ability to predict the movement of the planets. Not consensus. You lack grounding in history.

              The church held mankind back for centuries based on opinion and consensus of the priests. You want to do that with figuring out climate change? Based on that, you want to condemn 2nd and 3rd world countries to life times of poverty?

              Scientists are done with a subject when the proofs pile up and models based on theories work so well there is little room for discussion. This is not the current case with climate. IF you had read even some of the information on the Scientific Method you would know this. Instead your rambling nonsense about how science works.

              4. You defer to the ‘better educated.’ That makes you gullible. Especially after the information I’ve provided that calls the ‘authorities’ into question. I doubt you read up on Climategate and the other climate frauds.

              The great decisions we are making are political not scientific. Do we let our governments tax us trillions and give up improving living standards for the poor of the world and condemn millions to life times of poverty? That is the decision we are making. You are saying you’ll leave it to others. That is the definition of apathy. The politicians are hoping you will do just that.

          • 1. I don’t find the “evidence” compelling. It’s ok that you do. Please continue studying more with an open-mind and your opinion may change.

            2. I disagree that this is “simple stuff”. Criticizing something like the models use to study and make predictions about climate is a lot more than basic math and statistics. The reason models can be faulty for even experts is because they’re so complex. So I have no interest in trying to dispute experts with my own google’d up findings because well, I have no expertise.

            What I can do though is rely upon most recent consensus.

            3. I still think its a faux either-or when it comes to consensus vs. science. The latter precedes the former. So I have no opinion in any debate you want to have between the two since I don’t see any conflict between consensus and science. They go hand in hand.

            On the whole priests consensus thing, I don’t get that argument. This consensus is with climate scientists. It’s not like I’m saying I believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

            Also, like I’ve said each and everytime I’ve commented, if consensus changes tomorrow my opinion will probably change once I read and understand the reasons consensus has changed. So I’m with you that this all may not be settled, but as it stands, when it comes to your “Who do you believe?” question, well, that 97% of climate scientists deal is still a lot more convincing than skeptical bloggers. Even in light of your links attempting to dispute that figure.

            4. Would I still be gullible if I commented instead “WOW these links change everything. I believe you 100%!”? Just because you failed to change my mind in this instance doesn’t make me gullible. I know you blog to enlighten, but on this particular issue, much of it is old news to me and long since been mulled over. Again, I wouldn’t have even commented hadn’t you asked a question I could easily answer. It wasn’t my intention for my answer to occupy your mind for more than a few seconds.

            • Erza, I do not see you engaging in rational discussion or striving to arrive at a truth in regard to climate change. Your debate skills are practically non-existent. Your choice to try and show consensus is as good as science flies in the face of centuries of carefully reasoned thought and centuries of proof. You are being absurd.

              The Greeks started with the method in the 6th century making the hypothesis that natural events were not acts of supernatural beings. At the time the consensus was Thor made the lightening. Egyptians started with the scientific method in the 7th century. They became a great scientific light of the time for centuries.

              The Arabic populations initially embraced the works of the ancient philosophers and had them translated to Arabic. In that time the Arabic countries excelled in math, sciences, and astronomy.

              As the Muslin religion teaches that God can change anything at any moment to suite his will, the idea of the scientific method is rejected as pointless. As the religion spread Arabic countries begin using the belief and consensus of the ‘clergy’ methods once again essentially falling into a dark age of religious ‘enlightenment’. They have yet to crawl out of that hole.

              The Judo-Christian countries adopted the scientific method as a better way to understand God’s creations that were considered perfect and unchanging. They advanced technically and improved their standard of life. It was in the 1200’s that crusaders found and translated the ancient works of the Greeks in the hands of the Arabs from Arabic. The formalization of the method and wide adoption by the 1400’s brought the Renaissance, among other factors.

              Your position is very much like the old religious beliefs of accepting authority without question. Go with your ideas of consensus. You are free to be ignorant and trust people known to be lying. But, don’t try to pass consensus off as a substitute for science and rational skepticism. That just reveals your ignorance of history and science.

              I also suggest you learn how to debate.

        • “You throw around the word consensus like its a bad thing. There’s consensus on the Earth not being flat, is that reason I should be skeptical the Earth isn’t?”

          No, you should treat “consensus” as irrelevant because it’s a distraction from any means of acquiring knowledge. Proving that the world is round had nothing to do with convincing a majority.

          Pasteur was once in the minority.

          • I don’t believe that one bit. For example, Wikipedia would be a pretty crappy place if consensus in what’s true and what isn’t was irrelevant and in fact a distraction from acquiring knowledge.

            Consensus is a very very very necessary ingredient of doling out truths as we best know them.

            • No. Consensus is about people agreeing to do something. It is never about truth. A jury verdict is consensus and judgment based on evidence of what they have heard. It is about what the jury believes to be the truth, not what is the truth.

    • “In short, ’til someone can explain why the vast majority of trained, experienced experts on climate are wrong for saying the earth is getting warmer compared to hundreds of years ago and we are the cause, I gotta roll with them”

      I doubt the scientists involved in the industry that sprang up around phrenology were ultimately responsible for disproving it. The green movement is a cash monster. However, research funding is hard to come by if one doesn’t come down on the “correct” side of the equation. Similarly, one can make a comfortable career of baselessly mocking and shaming scientists who don’t fall in line.

  3. Personally, I find it offensive that first world countries are trying to impose growth restrictions on second and third world economies, and using climate change as an excuse. I suppose discrimination based on skin colour is no longer in vogue?

    Climate change? Bring it on Mate! Some will win, some will loose. Humanity shall adapt. Smart investors might even make a lot of money out of it.

    • Few people have realized how detrimental climate change/warming “policies to reduce carbon” are to the poor and the developing countries. None of the policies help them. To tell a poor countries to be patient and starve just awhile longer… so that politicians can levy taxes based on a hoax that THEY can stop climate change, something that has gone on since the planet’s beginning… sheese!

  4. In 1975 the New York Times said that global COOLING was inevitable:
    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B1FFD395D137B93C3AB178ED85F418785F9&scp=1

    • And they would be right. Millions of years of history show things change. Their recent article on COOLING Ahead that you link to is questionable. It is the WHEN and how much that are in question.

      Russia and China have scientists that think cooling is coming for the next 50 years or so… solar cycle thing.

      As for the NYT being an authority, look at: http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

      This is why I say you can’t trust the media. Consider the journalists from a station that was bragging about their accuracy: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/13/1223214/-KTVU-reports-Asiana-pilot-names-Captain-Sum-Ting-Wong#

  5. “Wikipedia would be a pretty crappy place if consensus in what’s true and what isn’t was irrelevant and in fact a distraction from acquiring knowledge.”

    Where there are disagreements on Wikipedia, they aren’t resolved by seeking consensus. Parties cite and evaluate evidence. Where evidence isn’t decisive, both sides are presented. Consensus doesn’t decide a thing on Wikipedia, excepting low interest articles where only one side shows up. Many of those articles are indeed “pretty crappy.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.