How to recognize fraudulent climate data, and false claims

We are the Borg.
Posts: 16344
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

How to recognize fraudulent climate data, and false claims

Post by robinson »

Restarting the MARCH 2020 THREAD ONCE AGAIN!
robinson wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 7:15 am Scientific fraud? Or political nonsense? Something else?
robinson wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:54 pm I became a skeptic in Feb 2010.

Why? What does that even mean?

Inspired by
gnome wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:29 pm Skeptic of the phenomenon, its causes, or the appropriate response to it? Or some combination?

What led to your change of mind?
Abdul Alhazred wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:00 pm OK. What happened in Feb 2010?

Something in the world in general, or just the month the light-bulb in your head turned on? :roll:
In two days it will be 11 years since it actually started. December 19 2009. I didn't know it at the time. The climategate emails were out, but I wasn't that interested. Like a good skeptic I didn't need to actually look at anything to know what was what.

There had been some malarky about a hockey stick graph for years, but obviously anyone arguing against global warming was a paid shill for fossil fuels, or insane. There had to be something wrong with them.

So here's the short version. I experienced a record shattering blizzard (my first one ever!) starting on the 19th of December 2009. ... n_blizzard

It was actually fun for me, even the shoveling and the inconvenience didn't bother me. First blizzard ever, and the amount of snow was amazing. DC was quite variable in snow amounts, and I didn't actually know that 25 inches of snow was a lot. A lot for anywhere, but definitely a lot of DC

(other locations had 15 inches, some had 3 feet)

It's ironic that as I sit here typing this out, there is another huge blizzard hitting the northeastern US. Deeply ironic. Especially since snow (and the cold that causes it) are fundamental for both my skepticism, climate, data and the arguments about it all. If you find the argument "it is snowing so much because the climate is warmer" either convincing, or ridiculous, I understand.

No, I really do. I actually used that argument in December 2009, that's how unskeptical I was at the time. I explained the blizzard away, by saying it was because it was getting warmer. "More moisture because warmer, means more snow", which as you will see, is still an argument, about snow.

The difference is, now I consider that bullshit, and I know it's bullshit. And the data shows it is bullshit. But I also know the data will probably not change anyone's mind. It certainly won't change the minds of the skeptics who read this topic, who are 100% sure about the matter already.

Those who are skeptical and find it a bullshit argument might nod sagely and then ask, "So what?"

In any case, I don't think it will matter. Not even a little.

Dumping data into the topic will make it matter even less. Is it fraud? Is it a matter of faith? Is it ignorance? Hubris? Politics? Who the fuck can tell?

From a scientific POV, I actually would like to know. But here's the thing. The only way to know, is if you, another human being reading this, is if you tell the truth. If you are honest, and share your view, it might be possible to learn something about this. (hope springs eternal you know)

The last time I started in on this was at the beginning of the lockdowns, and I fucked up my one computer I can run the software on. Not this time. Science!
Because image files just vanish here, I have to host the images on my blog, then go through the extra work of posting here, which means usually after I finish the blog post I don't bother with here.

It's over twice the effort, and I don't care that much.
Last edited by robinson on Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 16344
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: How to recognize fraudulent climate data, and hysteria with graphs

Post by robinson »

Starting with the most obvious facts, because they are obvious.
robinson wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 2:14 am
robinson wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:03 pm
I mean, if you have read this far down you are either interested, or really bored, or who the fuck knows. My hypothesis is that long before this point most people stopped reading, and if you actually are reading, but not engaging, then what the fuck is wrong with you?


Just kidding. I actually know why you are reluctant to respond,.

Especially the current dumb as hell troll

2009, it was supposed to be warmer than ever, which most logical sane people can understand.

This was before the same thing happened so many times the story changed, In 2008, even 2009, it was reasonable to say it was natural variability, just weather, shit happens. But after it happened again, and again, and a trend showed up, colder winters with a shit ton more snow, the story changed.

Now, the record cold and snow has become evidence that it is getting warmer. In 2008 that would have sounded like crazy talk, OK it still sounds like crazy talk in 2020, but the point remains.

Which brings the discussion to the record breaking snow centered on Boston in the winter of 2014-2015 ... l-warming/ ... a32dcda48/

Now we have the same Kevin Trenberth who noted the record cold and snow in Oct 2009 expertsplaining how record cold and snow actually is from global warming.

What? That's crazy talk. (of course it is)
So if anyone tries to tell you that climate change directly caused Boston’s record-breaking and continuing snowmageddon, that’s not true. What is true, however, is that climate change may have affected the snowstorm — may have made it more likely, may have made it worse than it would have been without so much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It bears repeating: “All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”

The question, then, becomes how? How did the warmer and moister environment in which we now live because of human-caused carbon emissions affect Boston’s historic weather event? Wouldn’t a warmer, moister environment mean less snow? How does that even make sense? ... a32dcda48/

The entire expertsplaining is at the link. Both Trenberth and Mann get in on it, Mannsplaining how the record warmth caused more mositure which caused the record snow.

Which is exactly what I thought back in February 2010, all this fucking snow is because global warming.

But in 2015, it was easy to check the data, unlike in 2010. And the data showed there was actually less water in the record snow, It wasn't even a normal amount of precip for Jan-Feb in the record snowfall.

It wasn't some record because of more water falling. It was very very cold, and because the snow ratio is based on temperature, the snow was very heavy (which means snow depth, not weight), which means the Mannsplaining was horseshit.

This can now be shown with graphs and other science shit
Posts: 16344
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: How to recognize fraudulent climate data, and false claims

Post by robinson »

robinson wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:01 am One thing I did not mention, is just how bad the records of weather can be, even in the country with the best records. (United States)
Records = recorded data

Most states don't even have a benchmark station, and even the ones run by the NWS have errors and missing months. The best records come from COOP observers, the ones run by the same person or family for a long time. But I digress.

So the latest cluster fuck of unimaginable proportions has to be Texas of course. It's hard to handwave away the biggest disaster in US history, especially when it involves snow. (better to somehow blame it on global warming, climate change, which is exactly what has happened)

Now I will admit I have a failing, and it is simply this. Stupid, wrong explainings bother me. When some internet moron says something stupid, no big deal. But when leading climate scientists do it, it bothers me. Especially when it is so easy to know they are either idiots, or liars. It's actually more likely they are just woke.
robinson wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:00 am
Surprise wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:02 am I quote

Global warmist are busy trying to decide if it’s a meaningless anomaly, or evidence of global warming
Exactly. Alarmists are so worried about record snowfall, they actually claim it's from global warming.

Oh I know that sounds crazy, but it's 100% true. Easy to prove as well.
The horrific Texas snow and cold is but the latest example of how I know these morons are full of shit.

Here's my prediction. I will provide solid evidence to support my claim. It will make not one bit of difference.