Just curious

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Many years ago, a friend of my who is a statistician was talking about how they collected the data points used to come up with the global warming thing. He did this to illustrate a point. And that was with problems you get when you use bad data. I can't remember the specifics, but he said that is what happened with the initial hypothesis of global warming.

Now, the earth has had periods of temperature rise throughout its existence. But it is hard to talk away how hot it is getting in such a short period of time. Hard to believe that it can't be because of people.

the so-called "hockey graph" turned out to be bad data. anything to say about that? it's the reason the "climate pimps" had to drop "global warming" and rebrand this nonsense to the intentionally ambiguous "climate change"

in 100 years of modern civilization even your "doom Sayers" can only show 1 degree in "warming" prove that data wrong.

pollution is the problem. climate change is nonsense. the solar cycles have more to do with it than anything man is doing.

[cc314]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

amusing. everybodywiki is your "source"
sounds "credible" ... NOT!
bahahahaa

everybodywiki was a source about Tony Heller's pseudonym. Here is another one, https://www.desmog.com/steven-goddard/ , and here is its rating, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/desmog/
Interesting quote, "Tony Heller describes himself as 'an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.'"

Reminder, video you posted was from Tony Heller/Stephen Goddard. Here is his site, https://realclimatescience.com/#gsc.tab=0
Here is how his site is rated (quackery, ouch), https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

the so-called "hockey graph" turned out to be bad data. anything to say about that? it's the reason the "climate pimps" had to drop "global warming" and rebrand this nonsense to the intentionally ambiguous "climate change"

in 100 years of modern civilization even your "doom Sayers" can only show 1 degree in "warming" prove that data wrong.

pollution is the problem. climate change is nonsense. the solar cycles have more to do with it than anything man is doing.

Amusing you have stopped providing sources. Do you have any credible (or semi-credible) sources for the hockey graph thing, the reasons for the rebranding, and why "...1 degree in 'warming' prove that data wrong"?

[TheDaliLama]

When Libtards actually get away from the left wing propaganda the MSM spews and actually hears NEWS that’s fair and balanced such as FOX they think it’s bias and so you get what we have here….a self induced ignorant condition based on deprivation of factual input and training that results in outrageous and factless remarks and conclusions.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by cc314

everybodywiki was a source about Tony Heller's pseudonym. Here is another one, https://www.desmog.com/steven-goddard/ , and here is its rating, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/desmog/
Interesting quote, "Tony Heller describes himself as 'an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.'"

Reminder, video you posted was from Tony Heller/Stephen Goddard. Here is his site, https://realclimatescience.com/#gsc.tab=0
Here is how his site is rated (quackery, ouch), https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/



Amusing you have stopped providing sources. Do you have any credible (or semi-credible) sources for the hockey graph thing, the reasons for the rebranding, and why "...1 degree in 'warming' prove that data wrong"?

if you don't know what the "hockey graph thing" is you aren't knowledgeable on the subject matter of "climate change".

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

WRONG

Tariffs have a place to keep some countries from dumping products dramatically below the cost of production.
.

If the the USA is a significant manufacturing base for the product and if it's either important to our security or it's likely the foreigners will jack up the price when they've run U.S. competitors out of business, then you're right. Rare earth elements would be a good example if we ever got that industry up and running. Certain pharmaceuticals would be another.

If the product is clothing, toys or cheap electronics that we don't manufacture here, or even something like steel, then I disagree. Hot rolled coil steel in the USA might cost $600/ton to produce, but can be bought from China for $400/ton. If they buy from U.S. producers as a result of tariffs, then U.S. manufacturers which use steel can't be competitive when they go to sell their products in foreign markets. Is China subsidizing its producers? While steel prices are cyclically depressed, I'd still argue yes to an extent, as uncreditworthy steel manufacturers there can get money from state owned banks. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. It's not as good as getting something for free, but getting it with a big discount is the next best thing.

I'm using China as an example, but there are other countries that export steel as well, although not as much as China.

Comparative advantage is a wonderful thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

The best way to compete is through regulations that make sense and a tax system that doesn't penalize savings and investment, and a tax rate on business profits that's competitive with other countries. We know where the parties stand on that.

Some very smart people, like Paul Krugman and Lusty Lad, would probably take your side on this.

[cc314]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

if you don't know what the "hockey graph thing" is you aren't knowledgeable on the subject matter of "climate change".

The hockey graph thing would be your assertion that it turned out to be bad data, and I asked for sources about three of your assertions.

So, you have no sources for your assertions. Got it.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by cc314

The hockey graph thing would be your assertion that it turned out to be bad data, and I asked for sources about three of your assertions.

So, you have no sources for your assertions. Got it.

i'm gonna help you out on this one but you'll have to learn to do your own research ..







the hockey stick graph .. the predicted spike in temperature hasn't happened.



Publicity and controversy on publication of MBH98

Release of the paper on 22 April 1998 was given exceptional media coverage, including questioning as to whether it proved that human influences were responsible for climate change. Mann would only agree that it was "highly suggestive" of that inference.[46] He said that "Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors". Most proxy data are inherently imprecise, and Mann said "We do have error bars. They are somewhat sizable as one gets farther back in time, and there is reasonable uncertainty in any given year. There is quite a bit of work to be done in reducing these uncertainties." Climatologist Tom Wigley welcomed the progress made in the study, but doubted if proxy data could ever be wholly convincing in detecting the human contribution to changing climate.[47]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey...ation_of_MBH98

[cc314]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

i'm gonna help you out on this one but you'll have to learn to do your own research ..

the hockey stick graph .. the predicted spike in temperature hasn't happened.
Publicity and controversy on publication of MBH98
Release of the paper on 22 April 1998 was given exceptional media coverage, including questioning as to whether it proved that human influences were responsible for climate change. Mann would only agree that it was "highly suggestive" of that inference.[46] He said that "Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors". Most proxy data are inherently imprecise, and Mann said "We do have error bars. They are somewhat sizable as one gets farther back in time, and there is reasonable uncertainty in any given year. There is quite a bit of work to be done in reducing these uncertainties." Climatologist Tom Wigley welcomed the progress made in the study, but doubted if proxy data could ever be wholly convincing in detecting the human contribution to changing climate.[47]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey...ation_of_MBH98

From the same source...

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by cc314

From the same source...

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

excellent. you're leaning .. that there is no clear consensus on climate change.


congratulations.

[cc314]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

excellent. you're leaning .. that there is no clear consensus on climate change.
congratulations.

80% consensus for climate change in general, which you already agreed to, is clear enough and not no clear consensus.

The hockey puck thing is a component and has broad consensus after accounting for data concerns. Broad consensus is not no clear consensus and not "turned out to be bad data."

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by cc314

80% consensus for climate change in general, which you already agreed to, is clear enough and not no clear consensus.

The hockey puck thing is a component and has broad consensus after accounting for data concerns. Broad consensus is not no clear consensus and not "turned out to be bad data."

80% according to NASA. a biased source.

[cc314]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

80% according to NASA. a biased source.

Nope.
NASA was at 97%, https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1063592679&postcount=9 . Your source was at 80%, https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...5&postcount=11 . You agreed with 80% here, https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...9&postcount=20 .

It's cool, though. It's complicated, https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1063592038&postcount=5

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by cc314

Nope.
NASA was at 97%, https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1063592679&postcount=9 . Your source was at 80%, https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...5&postcount=11 . You agreed with 80% here, https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...9&postcount=20 .

It's cool, though. It's complicated, https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1063592038&postcount=5

do you see what's happening here? my Forbes article disputes your article. for every article you claim proves "mass consensus" i can easily find another that disproves it. if there really was the "consensus" you claim why are there so many articles disagreeing with that claim?


i win the point on that alone.

[cc314]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

do you see what's happening here? my Forbes article disputes your article. for every article you claim proves "mass consensus" i can easily find another that disproves it. if there really was the "consensus" you claim why are there so many articles disagreeing with that claim?
i win the point on that alone.

Your articles haven't disproved mass consensus, but they have provided original sources that possibly disprove mass consensus. The last article you provided (the hockey stick thing) didn't even support the point you were making. I haven't taken the deep dive into those original sources yet. At worst, the articles you've provided so far give us, not 97%. At best, they get us to 80%. That's not disproof, two is not "so many," and you only really need one good one (one of those original sources cited in your articles may be it, maybe not).

Keep at it. It's complicated.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by cc314

Your articles haven't disproved mass consensus, but they have provided original sources that possibly disprove mass consensus. The last article you provided (the hockey stick thing) didn't even support the point you were making. I haven't taken the deep dive into those original sources yet. At worst, the articles you've provided so far give us, not 97%. At best, they get us to 80%. That's not disproof, two is not "so many," and you only really need one good one (one of those original sources cited in your articles may be it, maybe not).

Keep at it. It's complicated.

now you are repeating yourself over and over.


the Forbes article showed that NASA .. a biased source to begin with .. was only 80%. the other link shows overall it's about 50%. the wiki link shows not "possibly" but there is no way to accurately model certain data especially in the past where such records were either not recorded at all or recorded with enough variance to give rise to inaccuracies in the data used for the infamous "hockey stick graph" which has yet to accurately predict "warming"


feel free to post new articles showing the scientific community has "consensus" on man made climate change.


but you did make one good point .. it is complicated. so complicated that there is no "consensus" on it.