Remember me
▼ Content

Amateur Needs Tony Hiller Help


Amateur Needs Tony Hiller Help01-10-2018 05:45
Sean W OMalley
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
I know he is supposed to be discredited by I read a couple of his posts and the people trying to debunk and am confused.

An amateur needs some Tony Heller Help:

I just came across a guy with about 20 videos (Tony Heller at https://realclimatescience.com/) all of which claim that global warming is a complete scam instigated by the climate scientists to get funding. The problem is I almost believe him and the videos seem to make very good points. Now this has happened to me before when I read an anti-global warming book and was also someone convinced until I read a rebuttal which completely changed my mind. Ok here goes.

Before you start let me explain where I am coming from. It is perfectly possible that climate scientists are lying through their teeth about global warming and that global warming is happening and is dangerous. It is also possible that Tony Heller is a fraud and some of his points are valid.

The first problem. I only found a couple of rebuttals to all of this guy's work. The first rebuttal claims that he cherry picked. The second basically says that when they alter old climate data they actually know what they are doing so trust us. But they did not address all of the guys serious claims. Why given the amount we are spending on global warming can't we hire someone to rebut each and every claim made by these (hopefully) idiots. If you want to pass something like carbon taxes letting these guys make these claims without rebutting each and every one of them fast and hard is simply political suicide. First question are there rebuttals for all of Tony Heller's posts and I am just missing them? Could someone please point them out to me. I mean concrete rebuts. Like the graph he uses is BS here are the real graphs see how they don't match.

The second problem. This guy does the following. He puts up a map of global temperatures then he puts up a map of where there are actual physical thermometers. The net result is that it is blindingly hot everywhere there is no data. There is this massive hot spot over New Guinea where there are in fact no thermometers. This is true for the whole map. This sounds bad but if global warming is the problem they say it is why can't we afford to put a thermometer in New Guinea? Why don't we have real data from real thermometers everywhere? This seems stupid and is playing into the hands of the deniers. Rather than having to explain in some form of complex climate guru speak why you think New Guinea is that hot. Spend a 1000 dollars and put a goddam thermometer there and measure it. If you don't I have to believe that these non-measured areas exist to allow you to fudge the climate data. I have yet to see a direct rebuttal to this claim.

The third problem. Whenever any temperature data is modified for any reason the effect is the same the past gets colder and present gets warmer. All the time in every case. This seems unlikely. I would think that changes would be random. The guy also calculates that the entire current warming was caused by the data points that have been adjusted. Even if there is a rational explanation for this this has got to drive the anti-global warming people crazy if true. This guy's favorite ploy is to compare the current NOAA data from the same data from say 1990. It always shows the same thing a cooler past and a warmer present. Why is there not a page at NOAA explaining why this is true and why this is correct. Again I have to say if your current data does not agree with your old data someone has to explain something. I saw two rebuttals one was some clown saying that no one before 1960 knew how to measure temperature. The second was a paper that basically said we know what we are doing but does not explicitly say why old temperatures go down and new temperatures go up when adjusted. In addition there is this little thing called the dust bowl. A time when temperatures in the great plains were so hot it was almost uninhabitable. If you claim that 2017 is the hottest year on record what happened to 1934. It is like NOAA things no one is old enough to remember this stuff.

The fourth problem. All the temperature data sets agree with one another and agree with the rate of CO22 rise to an unbelievable extent. Also independent of Hiller I have noticed that all of the climate models seem to agree to an unlikely extent. This guy's explanation for this is that they took the CO2 data then massaged the temperature data to match and that none of the "independent" temperature data sets is truly independent. Now I am a computer scientist and lots of people got burned in field by thinking things are independent when they are not. I am sorry the data is just too perfect. This is like the fact that the global warming people claim every hurricane is caused by global warming. If just once they would announce that hurricane whatever has nothing to do with global warming their credibility would increase. A random bump in one of the graphs would go a long way toward convincing me that they are measuring real things rather than simply making this up.

My problem is while I am a (computer) scientist my knowledge of statistics was never that good so there is basically no way for me to know what is going on here. I have a rule that I only believe conspiracies where money is involved and while money is involved now there was none when this started. If this guy's claims are true and this is some form of vast conspiracy here is my net on what could be going on. What if you are an astronomer working on the space telescope and spot a large asteroid heading towards the earth. You have the data and you are about to announce but a huge system crash happens and the space Telescope is destroyed along with the only copy of your data and there is no way to get it again. Would you tell the truth or fake it and create the bogus data set for your results? I think traditional science goes out the window when scientists think the world is going to end. At that point the ends seem to justify the means. I really think these climate scientist think the world is going to end if we do not do something now. Also consider the fact that the climate is naturally variable and there is no reason the current decade or century could be a natural cold spell so when you add natural variability to global warming you get a wash. Climate scientist worked incredibly hard to get the data to say the 10 year pause in temperature used by the climate deniers did not happen when a 10 year pause was kind of what you would expect from such a system. You know this as a scientist but you know the average voter does not. So do you put your thumb on the scale? Once you do that you can never stop.

My view of global warming is as follows. I think the climate is warming, I think it is man-made and I think it will eventually be bad. My reasons are obscure. I find the fact that warm water ocean creatures are pushing up the California coast convincing. Those studies are not done by climate scientists and when warm water life forms end up off Seattle it is strong evidence of warming. I also think that the hurricane that ended up in Ireland is fairly convincing evidence of sea temperature increases. Also I have read a paleoclimate book that said the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere now is much worse than what happened the last time we had CO2 based climate problems. I have not trusted climate scientist since I saw 10 of them led around like trained seals by green peace in some video. I also discounted everything they have said since the climate science elite's universal reaction to even studying geo-engineering was it could never work despite that not being there area and that little or no research had been done on it at that time. Green peace did not like geo-engineer so they did not like geo-engineer. Additionally why is a climate scientist working for Exxon bad and a climate scientist who is a member of Green Peace good?

However I really do not care. If the temperature gets warm enough to cause actual problems we can simply and quickly use geo-engineering to drop the temperature to whatever we want. Give me 5 years, 50 billion, the right to fly from any US airbase and a target temperature and I could fix this problem myself (not the ocean acidification problem but let's deal with one thing at a time). The reason we are not "fixing" the global warming problem is that no one is interested in actually solving the problem. Exxon wants to pump oil and the green movement wants to kill Exxon. Global warming is simply a means to an end to the greens. It is a problem big enough for society to actually give up oil as a rational move. However the greens have always been interested in getting rid of Exxon. The greens are not interested in any solution to the global warming problem that does not get rid of Exxon. Now I expect this change when the southeast monsoon fails or Bangladesh disappears. But until that happens no one is going to do anything about anything. I think there is a small say 10% chance that geo-engineering won't work and that is why I think we should be spending money on it now. We might find it will not work and plan B is a bitch.
01-10-2018 07:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
A lot of arguments were presented in this last post. I'll touch on a few of the central ones.

First, there is no way to measure the temperature of the Earth. This itself is a math problem involving statistical math. In statistics, you must first select from your dataset using only raw data as the source. If a point is selected, it must be selected once and only once. Things like satellites cannot measure temperature. They can only measure light. To convert that to anything like temperature, you must first know Earth's albedo. That is measured constant that first requires you accurately know the temperature of Earth to calculate. Therefore you have to use thermometers. Selection must eliminate any biasing factors. That means that because storms move, the Earth spins, the seasons change, etc. the thermometers used must be read at the same time. Because you are measuring the whole Earth as opposed to the cities of Earth or the deserts of Earth, thermometers must be uniformly placed across the surface of the Earth. Concentrating them in cities as we do introduces an unknown bias, and the resulting summary is equally biased...useless.

A required calculation in any statistical summary is the value for the margin of error. This value is not calculated from the data, but from the ranges possible over the data. This means it will be calculated from observed temperature gradients, not the temperature data itself. This gradient is expressed as the number of degrees that may occur over a single fixed distance, say, a mile. Personally, I have experienced gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile on several occasions.

So the first question is, "How many thermometers are used to measure the global temperature?". Only when this number is known can you calculate how many thermometers per square miles there are. Only then can the gradient be applied and a proper statistical summary be done.

NASA claims the higher number of thermometers used. They use 7500 thermometers in their data set. This effectively places one thermometer for every 26,400 square miles. Since the observed gradient over that distance is greater than total range of observed temperatures anywhere on Earth, mathematically, this means NASA is guessing. The margin of error is simply greater than the observed record high and low temperatures on Earth. Therefore the margin of error IS the observed record high and low temperatures on Earth.

Anyone that tells you the temperature of the Earth is lying to you. Anyone that tells you the Earth is warming, cooling, etc. is lying to you. They don't know. They can't know. We simply don't have anywhere near enough instrumentation to know.
01-10-2018 08:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
I now turn to the question of CO2, methane, water vapor, etc. as 'greenhouse' gases.

According to the so-called 'greenhouse' model, visible light and 'short' infrared heats the Earth to some certain temperature. As a result, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the Earth radiates 'longwave' infrared light (anything above absolute zero emits light). According to this model, this light is absorbed by one of these magick gases which then re-radiate what they absorbed, heating the surface of the Earth.

This model violates several important laws of physics, namely the Stefan-Boltzmann law itself, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is basically a reiteration of the conservation of energy law. You cannot create or destroy energy. The greenhouse gas model attempts to create energy out of nothing.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy must increase or stay the same in any isolated system. What this essentially means is that the randomness of any system must always increase or stay the same. That system must be isolated, that is, you cannot consider any energy or matter from outside the system to affect that system.

The 2nd law defines what heat is (the flow of thermal energy). It also defines the direction of heat. It must always flow from a high concentration of energy (a hot area) to a low concentration of energy (a colder area). Heat never flows backwards, since that would reduce the entropy of a system. This is why you can't make hot coffee with an ice cube.

The 'greenhouse effect' model attempts to heat the surface using CO2 or other magick gas in the atmosphere. The trouble is, these gases are colder than the surface they are supposedly heating. The model is trying to make heat flow backwards, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law (remember that's the one that causes the infrared light to be emitted from the surface in the first place!) also applies to the planet as a whole. It applies to all bodies, everywhere, all the time. The equation for this law is: radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4. It applies to all frequencies of light emitted as a sum. It does not consider any particular frequency at all. It can be constructed by integrating Planck's law over all frequencies of light.

The 'greenhouse effect' model attempts to prevent infrared light from leaving the Earth at all by keeping it bouncing between the atmosphere and the surface. This effectively reduces the radiance of Earth. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, this must necessarily mean the temperature of the Earth must also be reduced. Temperature is always proportional to radiance...never inversely proportional.

Emissivity in this equation also applies to all frequencies of light combined. Emissivity is the inverse of albedo. Both numbers are expressed as a number from 0% to 100%. One is ideally reflective (it absorbs no light at all, and therefore emits no light at all; the ideal white body) and the other is ideally absorptive (it absorbs all light, and the only light coming from it is emitted light; the ideal black body).

No real bodies are ideally white or black. These are simply reference points. Real bodies therefore are 'gray' bodies. Their emissivity is somewhere between 0% and 100%. Absorptivity is the same value as emissivity.
Albedo is the inverse of both. This is a measured constant. You measure it by first accurately determining the temperature of the radiating surface, then comparing that to the ideal white and black values for the light you see emitted from it (rather than reflected from it).

The SBconstant is a constant of nature. It converts the equation to our units of measurement.

Normally, radiance is in watts^sq meter, and temperature is in deg Kelvin.


Finally, the 'greenhouse effect' model creates a paradox. According to the International Space Station, the outer skin temperature of that station on the sunlight side can approach some 250 deg F. That skin has no atmosphere, no CO2, no methane, no water vapor. Here on Earth, there is nowhere that ever gets that hot on the surface. If CO2 (or other magick gas) warms the Earth, why is the Earth so much COLDER?
01-10-2018 08:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
I now turn to the terms 'global warming', 'climate change', and similar phrases.

These phrases are meaningless buzzwords. They can only be defined by themselves. They cannot be defined any other way. They are created for political expedience by a religion. This religion (like many religions) speaks of the gloom and doom if you don't adhere to the tenets of their religion.

The word 'climate' is typically defined as 'weather over a long time' or some similar phrasing. This means that climate generally refers to the prevailing weather over 'a long time'. The trouble is, 'a long time' is not specified. There is no quantification for climate because there is no quantification of 'a long time'.

If you can't quantify something, you can't describe a 'change' in it because you can't describe the quantity that is changing. This means that you can have different climates, but they do not 'change'. They are simply different climates. Further, there is no such thing as a global weather. Therefore there is no such thing as a global climate. There is no global climate to 'change'. Therefore the phrase 'climate change' itself is meaningless. It's a buzzword.

This leads to similar problems with 'global warming'. Here temperature is obviously the thing described as changing, but over what period of time? From when to when? A 'warming' must necessarily involve two points in time. What makes these points significant? What makes any other points not significant?

I can say Seattle has seen a warming of over 60 deg F in a single six month period. We call it winter and summer. Yet according to the reasoning of the Church of Global Warming, this means Seattle will be burning alive by a single year from now.

Okay, they say. We are considering warming since the industrial revolution to today. Again, what is significant about those two points in time? Why are any other times not significant?

Thus, the 'warming' part of 'global warming' remains undefined. Therefore the phrase itself remains undefined. It is a meaningless buzzword.
01-10-2018 09:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
I now turn to religion, science, and a few odds and ends.

You will often see me discuss the Church of Global Warming as a fundamentalist religion. This is why.

Philosophy defines both science and religion. The best definition of any religion is to describe it's common characteristics.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument. Circular arguments by themselves are not fallacies. Only the failure to recognize one for what it is becomes the fallacy. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. The circular argument is also called an argument of faith.

A religion is not only just some initial circular argument. It also has other arguments extending from that initial argument.

The initial circular argument of Christianity, for example, is that Jesus Christ exists and He is who He says He is (namely the Son of God, part of the Godhead, a resurrected being, and Lord over the whole Earth). From this are extended arguments over His looks, His character, His various lessons he taught while here on Earth, and those messengers He makes use of to further His gospel on Earth. Thus, Christianity is a religion. Because of the circular nature of the initial argument, it is not possible to prove any of it is either True or False.

This happens to be true of any god or gods. It is not possible to prove the existence of any god or gods either True or False.

Other religions of the world, such as Hindi, Shinto, Buddhism, Roman gods, Greek gods, Norse gods, even a belief in Holy Pink Bunnies, are all religions. They are all based on some initial circular argument with arguments extending from that. This also means that atheism itself is a religion. It's initial circular argument is that no god or gods exist.

Religions do not require a god or gods. Shinto, for example, has none. It has many spirits and demons, but none are a god or gods. Buddhism honors Buddha and his wisdom, but he is not a god. Atheism has no god, no spirits, no demons, no anything.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. For a theory to be falsifiable, it must have a null hypothesis available (basically the question, "How can I show this theory is wrong?"), it must have a test for that null hypothesis that is available, practical, specific, and produces a specific result. At least one test must be performed on that hypothesis. If a theory survives such a test, it is automatically a theory of science. It will remain a theory of science (never proven), until it is destroyed by falsification (a test on the null hypothesis was successful).

It is this test for falsifiability that separates a theory of science from any other theory. All theories initially begin as circular arguments. A theory of science is no longer a simple circular argument. It has the test itself to fall back on. If a theory is not falsifiable, it must remain a circular argument. Such a theory CAN become the initial circular argument that becomes a religion.

I've said before that a circular argument is not itself a fallacy. Only the failure to recognize a circular argument for what it is becomes the fallacy. This means one is trying to prove the circular argument either True or False. Such an attempted proof is the fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

The initial circular argument of the Church of Global Warming is that the globe is 'warming'. Since I've already shown that this is based on an undefined phrase that can only be defined by itself, that makes this argument circular in nature. Further, its believers are fundamentalist in nature. Like any fundamentalist religion, any countering argument to their religion is met with insults, threats, condemnation, and attempts to censure that argument, usually followed by chanting the mantra again in a meaningless manner to reaffirm their own belief and to reiterate what all others should believe.

Therefore, I consider the Church of Global Warming to be a fundamentalist religion. It stems from another fundamentalist religion, the Church of Karl Marx.

Now while I usually allow anyone to believe what they will, the difference with these two religions is that they are attempting to become the State Religion. Should they succeed, it means the end of the United States of America, for the federal government will no longer be honoring it's own constitution that created it. It means the end of capitalism as well, which is the only system that can create wealth. It will be replaced instead by socialism, which can only exist by stealing wealth.
01-10-2018 09:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Arguments by using graphs or countering data with other data generally doesn't work. They just turn into shouting matches of whose data is 'right' or 'wrong'. As I have shown, it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is also not possible to measure the global sea level, the amount of ice that is on the Earth at any given time, or even the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere).

There ARE some things we can measure. We can get pictures of polar ice extent in the winter using satellites. This is a surface area measurement, but that's useful. Currently, according to the Snow and Ice data center in Boulder, CO., both poles are seeing greater ice extents this year. In 2014, the Antarctic showed a record maximum ice extent...the highest ever recorded. The years of 2013 and 2015 showed a near minimum ice extent.

In other words, the ice extent value varies quite a lot from year to year. So while it's useful, it's not all that useful as a predictor.


Hopefully, I've been able to somewhat clarify some of the basic arguments against the Church of Global Warming for you.
01-10-2018 16:27
James___
★★★☆☆
(652)
Sean W OMalley wrote:
I know he is supposed to be discredited by I read a couple of his posts and the people trying to debunk and am confused.




...Sean,
..What most people overlook is that the actual argument is "Are we influencing natural climate change". I think we are. What might be the bigger problem is that scientists don't know why inter-glacial periods are cyclical. Because of this they can't be sure how much we're impacting natural climate change.
..After the 4 previous inter-glacial periods the Earth cooled without a corresponding decrease in CO2 levels. This suggests that something else was responsible for the warming that ends ice ages. The last ice age ended because of the Earth's position relative to the Sun. This meant that it had a favorable orbit.
..I think once we understand how these different things worked together then we might be able to know what to expect in the future. For all we know as long as we keep warming the northern hemisphere we might be preventing it's cooling. The Little Ice Age is an example of global cooling.
..There are some experiments that can be tried to determine how much the composition of atmospheric gases effects it's ability to absorb and retain heat. So far everything is based on computer models it seems.
Edited on 01-10-2018 16:40
01-10-2018 22:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James___ wrote:
Sean W OMalley wrote:
I know he is supposed to be discredited by I read a couple of his posts and the people trying to debunk and am confused.




...Sean,
..What most people overlook is that the actual argument is "Are we influencing natural climate change". I think we are. What might be the bigger problem is that scientists don't know why inter-glacial periods are cyclical.

They DO know why it's cyclical. They can even calculate the cycles themselves and relate it the orbit of not only Earth, but of the other planets as well.
James___ wrote:
Because of this they can't be sure how much we're impacting natural climate change.
Define 'climate change'.
James___ wrote:
..After the 4 previous inter-glacial periods the Earth cooled without a corresponding decrease in CO2 levels. This suggests that something else was responsible for the warming that ends ice ages. The last ice age ended because of the Earth's position relative to the Sun. This meant that it had a favorable orbit.

A reasonably accurate conclusion.
James___ wrote:
..I think once we understand how these different things worked together then we might be able to know what to expect in the future.
We do. We can even plot it.
James___ wrote:
For all we know as long as we keep warming the northern hemisphere we might be preventing it's cooling.
You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
James___ wrote:
The Little Ice Age is an example of global cooling.
You could say that.
James___ wrote:
..There are some experiments that can be tried to determine how much the composition of atmospheric gases effects it's ability to absorb and retain heat. So far everything is based on computer models it seems.

You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2018 19:20
spot
★★★★☆
(1000)
The Climate change "debate" is like an argument between an old married couple This Tony Heller doesn't seem to be saying anything new, And seems more interested in politics then anything interesting to do with atmospheric physics.
02-10-2018 23:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
spot wrote:
The Climate change "debate" is like an argument between an old married couple This Tony Heller doesn't seem to be saying anything new, And seems more interested in politics then anything interesting to do with atmospheric physics.


Hiya troll.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2018 20:39
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1191)
Sean W OMalley wrote:
I know he is supposed to be discredited by I read a couple of his posts and the people trying to debunk and am confused.

An amateur needs some Tony Heller Help:

I just came across a guy with about 20 videos (Tony Heller at https://realclimatescience.com/) all of which claim that global warming is a complete scam instigated by the climate scientists to get funding. The problem is I almost believe him and the videos seem to make very good points. Now this has happened to me before when I read an anti-global warming book and was also someone convinced until I read a rebuttal which completely changed my mind. Ok here goes.

Before you start let me explain where I am coming from. It is perfectly possible that climate scientists are lying through their teeth about global warming and that global warming is happening and is dangerous. It is also possible that Tony Heller is a fraud and some of his points are valid.

The first problem. I only found a couple of rebuttals to all of this guy's work. The first rebuttal claims that he cherry picked. The second basically says that when they alter old climate data they actually know what they are doing so trust us. But they did not address all of the guys serious claims. Why given the amount we are spending on global warming can't we hire someone to rebut each and every claim made by these (hopefully) idiots. If you want to pass something like carbon taxes letting these guys make these claims without rebutting each and every one of them fast and hard is simply political suicide. First question are there rebuttals for all of Tony Heller's posts and I am just missing them? Could someone please point them out to me. I mean concrete rebuts. Like the graph he uses is BS here are the real graphs see how they don't match.

The second problem. This guy does the following. He puts up a map of global temperatures then he puts up a map of where there are actual physical thermometers. The net result is that it is blindingly hot everywhere there is no data. There is this massive hot spot over New Guinea where there are in fact no thermometers. This is true for the whole map. This sounds bad but if global warming is the problem they say it is why can't we afford to put a thermometer in New Guinea? Why don't we have real data from real thermometers everywhere? This seems stupid and is playing into the hands of the deniers. Rather than having to explain in some form of complex climate guru speak why you think New Guinea is that hot. Spend a 1000 dollars and put a goddam thermometer there and measure it. If you don't I have to believe that these non-measured areas exist to allow you to fudge the climate data. I have yet to see a direct rebuttal to this claim.

The third problem. Whenever any temperature data is modified for any reason the effect is the same the past gets colder and present gets warmer. All the time in every case. This seems unlikely. I would think that changes would be random. The guy also calculates that the entire current warming was caused by the data points that have been adjusted. Even if there is a rational explanation for this this has got to drive the anti-global warming people crazy if true. This guy's favorite ploy is to compare the current NOAA data from the same data from say 1990. It always shows the same thing a cooler past and a warmer present. Why is there not a page at NOAA explaining why this is true and why this is correct. Again I have to say if your current data does not agree with your old data someone has to explain something. I saw two rebuttals one was some clown saying that no one before 1960 knew how to measure temperature. The second was a paper that basically said we know what we are doing but does not explicitly say why old temperatures go down and new temperatures go up when adjusted. In addition there is this little thing called the dust bowl. A time when temperatures in the great plains were so hot it was almost uninhabitable. If you claim that 2017 is the hottest year on record what happened to 1934. It is like NOAA things no one is old enough to remember this stuff.

The fourth problem. All the temperature data sets agree with one another and agree with the rate of CO22 rise to an unbelievable extent. Also independent of Hiller I have noticed that all of the climate models seem to agree to an unlikely extent. This guy's explanation for this is that they took the CO2 data then massaged the temperature data to match and that none of the "independent" temperature data sets is truly independent. Now I am a computer scientist and lots of people got burned in field by thinking things are independent when they are not. I am sorry the data is just too perfect. This is like the fact that the global warming people claim every hurricane is caused by global warming. If just once they would announce that hurricane whatever has nothing to do with global warming their credibility would increase. A random bump in one of the graphs would go a long way toward convincing me that they are measuring real things rather than simply making this up.

My problem is while I am a (computer) scientist my knowledge of statistics was never that good so there is basically no way for me to know what is going on here. I have a rule that I only believe conspiracies where money is involved and while money is involved now there was none when this started. If this guy's claims are true and this is some form of vast conspiracy here is my net on what could be going on. What if you are an astronomer working on the space telescope and spot a large asteroid heading towards the earth. You have the data and you are about to announce but a huge system crash happens and the space Telescope is destroyed along with the only copy of your data and there is no way to get it again. Would you tell the truth or fake it and create the bogus data set for your results? I think traditional science goes out the window when scientists think the world is going to end. At that point the ends seem to justify the means. I really think these climate scientist think the world is going to end if we do not do something now. Also consider the fact that the climate is naturally variable and there is no reason the current decade or century could be a natural cold spell so when you add natural variability to global warming you get a wash. Climate scientist worked incredibly hard to get the data to say the 10 year pause in temperature used by the climate deniers did not happen when a 10 year pause was kind of what you would expect from such a system. You know this as a scientist but you know the average voter does not. So do you put your thumb on the scale? Once you do that you can never stop.

My view of global warming is as follows. I think the climate is warming, I think it is man-made and I think it will eventually be bad. My reasons are obscure. I find the fact that warm water ocean creatures are pushing up the California coast convincing. Those studies are not done by climate scientists and when warm water life forms end up off Seattle it is strong evidence of warming. I also think that the hurricane that ended up in Ireland is fairly convincing evidence of sea temperature increases. Also I have read a paleoclimate book that said the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere now is much worse than what happened the last time we had CO2 based climate problems. I have not trusted climate scientist since I saw 10 of them led around like trained seals by green peace in some video. I also discounted everything they have said since the climate science elite's universal reaction to even studying geo-engineering was it could never work despite that not being there area and that little or no research had been done on it at that time. Green peace did not like geo-engineer so they did not like geo-engineer. Additionally why is a climate scientist working for Exxon bad and a climate scientist who is a member of Green Peace good?

However I really do not care. If the temperature gets warm enough to cause actual problems we can simply and quickly use geo-engineering to drop the temperature to whatever we want. Give me 5 years, 50 billion, the right to fly from any US airbase and a target temperature and I could fix this problem myself (not the ocean acidification problem but let's deal with one thing at a time). The reason we are not "fixing" the global warming problem is that no one is interested in actually solving the problem. Exxon wants to pump oil and the green movement wants to kill Exxon. Global warming is simply a means to an end to the greens. It is a problem big enough for society to actually give up oil as a rational move. However the greens have always been interested in getting rid of Exxon. The greens are not interested in any solution to the global warming problem that does not get rid of Exxon. Now I expect this change when the southeast monsoon fails or Bangladesh disappears. But until that happens no one is going to do anything about anything. I think there is a small say 10% chance that geo-engineering won't work and that is why I think we should be spending money on it now. We might find it will not work and plan B is a bitch.


1, Global warming is real. Just not much, mot much due to humanity and not at all a problem. I have an ongoing challenge for anybody to cite a specific local council that has traffic lights and show any one aspect of global warming that will cause it to need to spend more than it's trafiic light budget to sort out. None so far.

2, You are a computer scientist; Do you have any understanding of fluid flow, air, modeling? I could really do with some help with a new wind turbine desing I have.
05-10-2018 17:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Sean W OMalley wrote:
I know he is supposed to be discredited by I read a couple of his posts and the people trying to debunk and am confused.

An amateur needs some Tony Heller Help:

I just came across a guy with about 20 videos (Tony Heller at https://realclimatescience.com/) all of which claim that global warming is a complete scam instigated by the climate scientists to get funding. The problem is I almost believe him and the videos seem to make very good points. Now this has happened to me before when I read an anti-global warming book and was also someone convinced until I read a rebuttal which completely changed my mind. Ok here goes.

Before you start let me explain where I am coming from. It is perfectly possible that climate scientists are lying through their teeth about global warming and that global warming is happening and is dangerous. It is also possible that Tony Heller is a fraud and some of his points are valid.

The first problem. I only found a couple of rebuttals to all of this guy's work. The first rebuttal claims that he cherry picked. The second basically says that when they alter old climate data they actually know what they are doing so trust us. But they did not address all of the guys serious claims. Why given the amount we are spending on global warming can't we hire someone to rebut each and every claim made by these (hopefully) idiots. If you want to pass something like carbon taxes letting these guys make these claims without rebutting each and every one of them fast and hard is simply political suicide. First question are there rebuttals for all of Tony Heller's posts and I am just missing them? Could someone please point them out to me. I mean concrete rebuts. Like the graph he uses is BS here are the real graphs see how they don't match.

The second problem. This guy does the following. He puts up a map of global temperatures then he puts up a map of where there are actual physical thermometers. The net result is that it is blindingly hot everywhere there is no data. There is this massive hot spot over New Guinea where there are in fact no thermometers. This is true for the whole map. This sounds bad but if global warming is the problem they say it is why can't we afford to put a thermometer in New Guinea? Why don't we have real data from real thermometers everywhere? This seems stupid and is playing into the hands of the deniers. Rather than having to explain in some form of complex climate guru speak why you think New Guinea is that hot. Spend a 1000 dollars and put a goddam thermometer there and measure it. If you don't I have to believe that these non-measured areas exist to allow you to fudge the climate data. I have yet to see a direct rebuttal to this claim.

The third problem. Whenever any temperature data is modified for any reason the effect is the same the past gets colder and present gets warmer. All the time in every case. This seems unlikely. I would think that changes would be random. The guy also calculates that the entire current warming was caused by the data points that have been adjusted. Even if there is a rational explanation for this this has got to drive the anti-global warming people crazy if true. This guy's favorite ploy is to compare the current NOAA data from the same data from say 1990. It always shows the same thing a cooler past and a warmer present. Why is there not a page at NOAA explaining why this is true and why this is correct. Again I have to say if your current data does not agree with your old data someone has to explain something. I saw two rebuttals one was some clown saying that no one before 1960 knew how to measure temperature. The second was a paper that basically said we know what we are doing but does not explicitly say why old temperatures go down and new temperatures go up when adjusted. In addition there is this little thing called the dust bowl. A time when temperatures in the great plains were so hot it was almost uninhabitable. If you claim that 2017 is the hottest year on record what happened to 1934. It is like NOAA things no one is old enough to remember this stuff.

The fourth problem. All the temperature data sets agree with one another and agree with the rate of CO22 rise to an unbelievable extent. Also independent of Hiller I have noticed that all of the climate models seem to agree to an unlikely extent. This guy's explanation for this is that they took the CO2 data then massaged the temperature data to match and that none of the "independent" temperature data sets is truly independent. Now I am a computer scientist and lots of people got burned in field by thinking things are independent when they are not. I am sorry the data is just too perfect. This is like the fact that the global warming people claim every hurricane is caused by global warming. If just once they would announce that hurricane whatever has nothing to do with global warming their credibility would increase. A random bump in one of the graphs would go a long way toward convincing me that they are measuring real things rather than simply making this up.

My problem is while I am a (computer) scientist my knowledge of statistics was never that good so there is basically no way for me to know what is going on here. I have a rule that I only believe conspiracies where money is involved and while money is involved now there was none when this started. If this guy's claims are true and this is some form of vast conspiracy here is my net on what could be going on. What if you are an astronomer working on the space telescope and spot a large asteroid heading towards the earth. You have the data and you are about to announce but a huge system crash happens and the space Telescope is destroyed along with the only copy of your data and there is no way to get it again. Would you tell the truth or fake it and create the bogus data set for your results? I think traditional science goes out the window when scientists think the world is going to end. At that point the ends seem to justify the means. I really think these climate scientist think the world is going to end if we do not do something now. Also consider the fact that the climate is naturally variable and there is no reason the current decade or century could be a natural cold spell so when you add natural variability to global warming you get a wash. Climate scientist worked incredibly hard to get the data to say the 10 year pause in temperature used by the climate deniers did not happen when a 10 year pause was kind of what you would expect from such a system. You know this as a scientist but you know the average voter does not. So do you put your thumb on the scale? Once you do that you can never stop.

My view of global warming is as follows. I think the climate is warming, I think it is man-made and I think it will eventually be bad. My reasons are obscure. I find the fact that warm water ocean creatures are pushing up the California coast convincing. Those studies are not done by climate scientists and when warm water life forms end up off Seattle it is strong evidence of warming. I also think that the hurricane that ended up in Ireland is fairly convincing evidence of sea temperature increases. Also I have read a paleoclimate book that said the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere now is much worse than what happened the last time we had CO2 based climate problems. I have not trusted climate scientist since I saw 10 of them led around like trained seals by green peace in some video. I also discounted everything they have said since the climate science elite's universal reaction to even studying geo-engineering was it could never work despite that not being there area and that little or no research had been done on it at that time. Green peace did not like geo-engineer so they did not like geo-engineer. Additionally why is a climate scientist working for Exxon bad and a climate scientist who is a member of Green Peace good?

However I really do not care. If the temperature gets warm enough to cause actual problems we can simply and quickly use geo-engineering to drop the temperature to whatever we want. Give me 5 years, 50 billion, the right to fly from any US airbase and a target temperature and I could fix this problem myself (not the ocean acidification problem but let's deal with one thing at a time). The reason we are not "fixing" the global warming problem is that no one is interested in actually solving the problem. Exxon wants to pump oil and the green movement wants to kill Exxon. Global warming is simply a means to an end to the greens. It is a problem big enough for society to actually give up oil as a rational move. However the greens have always been interested in getting rid of Exxon. The greens are not interested in any solution to the global warming problem that does not get rid of Exxon. Now I expect this change when the southeast monsoon fails or Bangladesh disappears. But until that happens no one is going to do anything about anything. I think there is a small say 10% chance that geo-engineering won't work and that is why I think we should be spending money on it now. We might find it will not work and plan B is a bitch.


1, Global warming is real.

Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions. It is buzzword, not real.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Just not much, mot much due to humanity and not at all a problem.

It is zero problem. There is no problem.
Tim the plumber wrote:
I have an ongoing challenge for anybody to cite a specific local council that has traffic lights and show any one aspect of global warming that will cause it to need to spend more than it's trafiic light budget to sort out. None so far.

Heh. Give 'em time. They'll find a way to justify it.
Tim the plumber wrote:
2, You are a computer scientist; Do you have any understanding of fluid flow, air, modeling?

Models are not data.
Tim the plumber wrote:
I could really do with some help with a new wind turbine desing I have.

Anchor it down real good! Another thing you're going to have to deal with is changing direction of wind. From what you have so far described, that's a whole lot of machine to move around to adjust for wind direction.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2018 13:02
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1191)
http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/index.html?r=20180616173841

For the future of power generation by humanity.

Not aiming high at all.....

Edited on 06-10-2018 13:02
06-10-2018 13:05
spot
★★★★☆
(1000)
Tim the plumber wrote:
http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/index.html?r=20180616173841

For the future of power generation by humanity.

Not aiming high at all.....


You made that eyesore? You really are crazy aren't you?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.




Join the debate Amateur Needs Tony Hiller Help:

Remember me

Related content
Articles
Tony Blair: Climate Change Speech
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact