Study: Temp Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming' in Climate Data

[Baelic]

Study doesn't state who funded it, article doesn't state who funded it.

Not sure what to believe right now.

[Blur4stuff]

Fossil fuel industry propaganda is apparently very effective with conservatives.

[Kaleredar]

Fossil fuel industry propaganda is apparently very effective with conservatives.

Remember, they're not anti-science...


They just don't believe the science supported by decades of study, peer review, and research from the world over. That's just not trustworthy enough.


But this ONE study that came out confirming what they want to hear and funded by dubious sources? That shit's scripture, yo.

[Trifle]

There are two kinds of climate scientists: Those who governments pay to confirm climate change, and those who oil companies pay to not confirm climate change. There are no white hats, only white coats.

I think that American scientists are still saying that climate change exists is clear evidence that they aren't just saying what their current government wants them to say...

[Kaleredar]

I think that American scientists are still saying that climate change exists is clear evidence that they aren't just saying what their current government wants them to say...

No, silly billy, US scientists are obviously traitors under the command of the One World Government that Emperor Trump is so valiantly fighting against.

[Calfredd]

Oh lookie here....an Endus apologist.

First time I've been called that. Does that mean I win the argument?

[Spectral]

The speaker in question:

D'Aleo is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[5] The declaration states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."[6]

Not really someone to take seriously.

[Edge-]

The speaker in question:

Not really someone to take seriously.

And this is a prime example of why folks don't take all these climate denier "studies" seriously. It's almost always run or funded by morons like this, and while they can no longer flat-out deny climate change exists they're trying every other possible angle to undermine confidence in the existing science.

It's exhausting to need to re-debunk these "studies" every few weeks as climate deniers continue to fling them at the wall like handfulls of poop, hoping some of it will stick.

[Mackeyser]

That's really not how it works.

Increased greening in certain locations literally means nothing when it comes to the food supply. Couple of centigrade shifts would literally mean that current areas where the climate is suitable for agriculture could also shift thousands of kilometers. Take Southern Europe, countries like Spain, are literally the breadbaskets of much of Europe. Spain is experiencing intense desertification. There's also the risk that due to the drop in salinity levels in the North Atlantic the warm water curents that heat Northern Europe would stop flowing, causing significant temperature drops in the area. The South would be too dry for agriculture and the North too cold. Hundreds of millions of Europeans depending on the insanely productive European agriculture would be forced to import most of their food stocks from...where exactly?

The same is applicable to the continental US. What if California experiences another drought? This one lasting...2 or 3 decades? What if the same happens to Texas?

What happens when the US Midwest gets 4-5 dry winters? What if hurricanes start to regularily go as north as New York and Boston?

What happens to Southern Florida when the sealevels rise another 2 feet? Half of Miami is already practically under the sea level.

And this is just talking about rich industrialized nations that do have the resources to adapt. Move these effects to a place like Nigeria with a population of 180+ million? What happens to them when they get a decade long drought? Or India if the mix of summer heat waves and rainy seasons wipe out crops for years in a row?

The issue is that you sorely misunderstand how averages work. While a 1 centigrade average warming appears to be trivial, that actually translates to things like hurricanes, +10 centrigrade month long heatwaves, etc, that's what fucks your shit up.

You just dropped the mic, brother. Boom.

[vhatever]

And this is a prime example of why folks don't take all these climate denier "studies" seriously. It's almost always run or funded by morons like this, and while they can no longer flat-out deny climate change exists they're trying every other possible angle to undermine confidence in the existing science.

It's exhausting to need to re-debunk these "studies" every few weeks as climate deniers continue to fling them at the wall like handfulls of poop, hoping some of it will stick.

What physical science do you have a PhD in and what did you win your Nobel for?

[Endus]

What physical science do you have a PhD in and what did you win your Nobel for?

It's not often someone lays out their appeal to authority fallacy that blatantly.

Of course, the better question is why you ignore all the thousands of other PhD-earning scientists who all contradict this one guy.

[Spectral]

What physical science do you have a PhD in and what did you win your Nobel for?

I'm not @Edge-, but FWIW, my Ph.D. is in Microbiology and Immunology. I'm pretty comfortable say it's sufficient to be decent at evaluating scientific claims, even if I lack that coveted Nobel.

In any case, it doesn't really matter. I don't get to use my degree as a cudgel to say, "STFU laypeople".

[vhatever]

It's not often someone lays out their appeal to authority fallacy that blatantly.

Of course, the better question is why you ignore all the thousands of other PhD-earning scientists who all contradict this one guy.

Yet you were the one saying a physicist that lacks climate alarmism indoctrination credentials, er, I mean "climatology", ahem, that he somehow didn't have a valid opinion.

[Edge-]

What physical science do you have a PhD in and what did you win your Nobel for?

Do I need to have a PhD to be able to debunk young earth creationist style nonsense? Because it's usually not terribly hard, these are folks that don't actual deal with science, and the bit Spectral quoted is a prime example of this type of stupidity.

[Endus]

Yet you were the one saying a physicist that lacks climate alarmism indoctrination credentials, er, I mean "climatology", ahem, that he somehow didn't have a valid opinion.

It isn't about credentials. That's the entire point.

He's wrong because he doesn't understand, or is deliberately misrepresenting, fairly basic concepts. As I went over in my earlier post.

Yet again, here we are, repeating this same silly nonsense;

[Toppy]

Yet you were the one saying a physicist that lacks climate alarmism indoctrination credentials, er, I mean "climatology", ahem, that he somehow didn't have a valid opinion.

You realize that you're only harming your own argument by name calling correct?

Not to mention those behind this "study", have no real credentials that aren't either theistic or are funded by groups who have everything to gain from climate denial. Its even been well explained how this study isnt even a real study.

[Spectral]

He's wrong because he doesn't understand, or is deliberately misrepresenting, fairly basic concepts. As I went over in my earlier post.

My guess would be complete epistemic closure. The bit I quoted indicates that it's axiomatic for him that the Earth is designed to support humans, ergo there's not really anything that can change that. If this is treated as an axiom, all that's left is figuring out how perfect homeostasis happens; I'd wager he approaches studies accordingly.

[vhatever]

Do I need to have a PhD to be able to debunk young earth creationist style nonsense? Because it's usually not terribly hard, these are folks that don't actual deal with science, and the bit Spectral quoted is a prime example of this type of stupidity.

Who exactly is presenting "young earth style creationist nonsense"?

[Jastall]

Remember, they're not anti-science...


They just don't believe the science supported by decades of study, peer review, and research from the world over. That's just not trustworthy enough.


But this ONE study that came out confirming what they want to hear and funded by dubious sources? That shit's scripture, yo.

Literally scripture, too! One of the, err, contributors is an evangelist.''Published'' on a wordpress blog. Clearly, the height of modern science, these men are the Rhodes Mathematicians of their time.

[I Push Buttons]

I am uncertain why Conservatives rightly articulate that there are no free lunches, BUT cannot understand that Nature won't just give us freebies forever.

Because Jesus...

To quote the organization one of the authors of this "study" belongs to:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."