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

[Chrysia]

"Per capita" is a bullshit metric in this case. Those countries are the top producers of pollution. Just because they have billions of people and their per capita is thus small - doesn't mean shit. Nothing honest about it.

No, it isn't. You can't expect 1 billion people to use less energy than 300 million.

[Noradin]

I think the main take away from the study was that temperatures were adjusted more then they should have been to create a more aggressive upward trend. Historic GISS temperatures appeared to shift lower for historical data and current global surface temp trends dont appear to be consistent and are higher then current actual recorded temp trends.

I think this was striking


I think this could be accounted for if the temps prior to the 40's were extremely high so you would have a harder time breaking heat records, it COULD also account for the cold records, however without looking at the actual data it is hard to tell.

No, that is exactly the point I disagree with.
The study jumps to the conclusion that there must have been an agenda because that fits their narrative, but the study does not offer any proof for that claim.
They do not go into detail how the justifications of those adjustments were insufficient as they claim either.
In fact, they practically admit that they themselves know that those adjustments were justified, and name the whole thing with its proper scientific name and then still fail to bring even an arugment why it should be disregarded. Worse, they turn around and claim the justification for those adjustments as justification against them.

That is like going around shouting beggars shouldn'd be allowed to eat, because without food they would starve to death and nobody wants that.

- - - Updated - - -

Millions of acres of rain forest missing has a negative affect on the planets ability to absorb CO2 on an ongoing natural basis. You could keep CO2 generation levels the same, but if you continue to clear cut rain forests CO2 levels will rise because the planet wont be able to keep up.

No, it just means that the CO2 that was stored in those forests was released.
Rain forests do not gain volume past a certain point in any signivicant way if you leave them alone.--That is why clear-cutting them leaves you with such a mess and why fields aquired by burning them will be exhausted quickly.
Do you know how thick the layer of fertile soil in untouched rain forests is and how fast it grows? (A few millimeters, and it doesn't grow. Ever.)

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not following you??

Don't worry, that should be reassuring to you.
Now if you could follow his argumentation, then you should go read up on logic and statistics.

- - - Updated - - -

Claiming I don't understand something without explaining what is it that I do not understand exactly - is attacking the person.

No, claiming that you did understand what you are making claims about would be an attack on your person.
Pointing out that you apparently don't is not.

- - - Updated - - -

"Per capita" is a bullshit metric in this case. Those countries are the top producers of pollution. Just because they have billions of people and their per capita is thus small - doesn't mean shit. Nothing honest about it.

Since you did admit that you do not care about anything but yourself I do not see why your opinion on this matter should be even considered.
Statistically it does not matter at all since you only care about one human out of billions.

[Flarelaine]

Contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. Lots of posters around here do it.

If only there was a noun to describe them. Something short. Maybe beginning with a "t", I like that letter.

[Elim Garak]

No, it isn't. You can't expect 1 billion people to use less energy than 300 million.

That's besides the point. Having a lot of people and requiring a lot of energy doesn't excuse them from polluting the environment. After all energy requirement != pollution, right? They choose dirty energy sources.

[Flarelaine]

Everyone is, including the Chinese/Indian populations, and China actually is heavily investing in solar energy.

China is centralised enough that I trust them to move in the right direction once the government gives the signal (and they have).

I'm more worried about India. For all the yammer about sacred rivers, they are unparalelled waste-dumpers.

[Ivanstone]

That's besides the point. Having a lot of people and requiring a lot of energy doesn't excuse them from polluting the environment. After all energy requirement != pollution, right? They choose dirty energy sources.

China at least is trying to move to cleaner energy and investing heavily. I know India is doing some investment but its not at China's levels.

The U.S. on the other hand is a country that's actively choosing dirtier energy sources over clean ones for "economic" reasons. Although I'm pretty sure "economic" in this case means greater executive compensation for oil and coal companies.

[Arenis]

Don't worry, that should be reassuring to you.
Now if you could follow his argumentation, then you should go read up on logic and statistics.

I just tried to explain him some stuff about it..

[Mafic]

IF the US does these two things than global warming impact is mitigated substantially.

1. Eat more chicken and less beef or eat less meat in general

2. Invest more in green energy like geo thermal, wind, solar, etc.

Global climate change is something that the consumer, the free markets and investors can solve a lot faster than the government. The government can only issue a "carbon" tax which is slow to put in place, hard to enforce (and costly) while also slowing down the economy.

People try to compare the carbon tax to the cigarette tax but the difference is that the smokers were subject to the tax primarily as an incentive to be weened off of buying cigarettes. A carbon tax is a cost that EVERYONE pays and it would be devastating for an economy.

[Endus]

"Per capita" is a bullshit metric in this case. Those countries are the top producers of pollution. Just because they have billions of people and their per capita is thus small - doesn't mean shit. Nothing honest about it.

No, trying to use absolute values rather than per-capita is what's unreasonable. Is Canada doing magically awesome in terms of emissions mitigation, just because we've "only" got 35 million people and thus out total contribution is tiny? Are all the EU nations doing way better than the USA, because they individually have smaller populations, even if that gap narrows significantly if you assess the EU in per-capita terms?

If you're using absolute numbers and not controlling for population, all you're doing is pointing at countries that have a lot of people, not countries that inefficiently use wasteful power. Which is the real issue. The only reason to avoid per-capita evaluations is because you want to avoid acknowledging how big a contributor your own nation is, by pointing at China and India.

Which is particularly weird since China may be late to the party, but they're fully on-board with reducing their emissions. They're already the world leader in terms of wind power generation, and they're pushing hard to convert themselves off "bad" energy generators. It's just that with a country the size of China, and their lack of wealth when compared to most developed nations, it's not something that happens overnight. But it's already well in progress.


If "per capita" were a terrible measure, would you think that China and India splitting themselves into a coalition of 15 "countries" each, all united under a political- and trade-agreement platform like the EU on steroids, would that fix the problem, by splitting their emissions 15 ways? Or is that a manipulation of the facts, and are they just as big an issue as they were before that split, for better or for worse?

Because if you'll admit the latter, you're admitting your position on per-capita evaluations isn't even something you actually believe.

[Elim Garak]

No, trying to use absolute values rather than per-capita is what's unreasonable.

Pollution is done in absolute numbers not per capita.

Let's unite the Earth into one single country - hey, per capita has reduced, we have saved the planet.

Per capita is only useful for domestic use, to assess something within a country. Because even with united earth we WILL look at regions for pollution producers, and ex-China region will be one of the most polluting, in absolute terms, so it's where the work needs to be done the most.

Per capita blurs the absolute number.

And now for your ridiculous "Let's break China into 15 countries"... it is exactly why per capita is bullshit in case of pollution. It will scale for each of 15 countries based on their population and absolute pollution per country - but absolute pollution overall will remain the same. This is not a competition. We need to reduce absolute pollution not per capita, because per capita is being reduced naturally, by population growth.

Actually we don't even need to break China - we can just use internal districts/territories/regions of China for the same purpose of bullshitting. Per capita is arbitrary beyond usefulness.

[Endus]

Pollution is done in absolute numbers not per capita.

That's a statement that makes no sense at all. It's evaluted in different ways depending on what you're evaluating.

Let's unite the Earth into one single country - hey, per capita has reduced, we have saved the planet.

Which isn't relevant, since it ignores the reason you use per-capita evaluations.

And now for your ridiculous "Let's break China into 15 countries"... it is exactly why per capita is bullshit in case of pollution. It will scale for each of 15 countries based on their population and absolute pollution per country - but absolute pollution overall will remain the same. This is not a competition. We need to reduce absolute pollution not per capita, because per capita is being reduced naturally, by population growth.

Literally nobody is arguing otherwise. You have a habit of doing that; inventing straw men. Worse, you've just admitted that your position on this is irrational, because you don't want to look at the contributions per country in an absolute sense, you want to combine those 15 countries into one and claim that nothing's changed.

You're stating you're not interested in the absolute emissions numbers per country, you want to consider how much they emit as a group. For all your complaints about "arbitrary" evaluations, your own metric is completely arbitrary, as you've demonstrated here. You aren't even remaining internally consistent.

Regardless, targeting China is still silly, since China's already on-board and working to reduce their emissions. Meanwhile, the USA, the largest per-capita emitter by far, has a President who's pulled the USA out of the Paris Agreement (basically the only country to do so), and who's talking about revamping the coal industry, which is one of the worst polluters. And is fiscally unsustainable in this day and age.

[Elim Garak]

That's a statement that makes no sense at all. It's evaluted in different ways depending on what you're evaluating.

Brilliant, can we get back to the evaluation of it for pollution then?

Which isn't relevant, since it ignores the reason you use per-capita evaluations.

Do you speak sarcasm? That was exactly the point I was making.

Literally nobody is arguing otherwise. You have a habit of doing that; inventing straw men.

Don't project.

Worse, you've just admitted that your position on this is irrational, because you don't want to look at the contributions per country in an absolute sense, you want to combine those 15 countries into one and claim that nothing's changed.

See? nice strawman. nowhere did I say what I want to do with anything.

You're stating you're not interested in the absolute emissions numbers per country, you want to consider how much they emit as a group. For all your complaints about "arbitrary" evaluations, your own metric is completely arbitrary, as you've demonstrated here. You aren't even remaining internally consistent.

You lack reading comprehension, apparently.
All I'm saying that only absolute numbers matter, and yet you claim I said that I'm not interested in absolute numbers per country, even though this whole sub-thread started about China and India. Consistency you say? Please keep up if you decided to join to a discussion.

Regardless, targeting China is still silly, since China's already on-board and working to reduce their emissions. Meanwhile, the USA, the largest per-capita emitter by far, has a President who's pulled the USA out of the Paris Agreement (basically the only country to do so), and who's talking about revamping the coal industry, which is one of the worst polluters. And is fiscally unsustainable in this day and age.

No one targeted anyone.
Per capita is bullshit. Exactly because USA has the highest, but it's not the highest pollution producer. What's Canada's per capita? Vatican's? How relevant these numbers are? You still have to multiply them by population (reverse the math) to get the idea how much pollution they produce. Duh.

[Endus]

See? nice strawman. nowhere did I say what I want to do with anything.

Except you did, in that post.

You lack reading comprehension, apparently.
All I'm saying that only absolute numbers matter, and yet you claim I said that I'm not interested in absolute numbers per country, even though this thole sub-thread started about China and India. Consistency you say? Please keep up if you decided to join to a discussion.

And when presented with a hypothetical breakup of China into 15 separate countries, you insisted they were still just as much an issue, even thought their absolute emissions have dropped massively.

That's why you're inconsistent.

Per capita is bullshit. Exactly because USA has the highest, but it's not the highest pollution producer. What's Canada's per capita? Vatican's? How relevant these numbers are? You still have to multiply them by population (reverse the math) to get the idea how much pollution they produce. Duh.

Per capita tells you which countries are being most wasteful and inefficient. Which is the entire point of the evaluation, in the first place. If you have two countries with identical per-capita emissions rates, but Country A has 5 times the population of Country B, Country A doesn't need to "do more" to reduce their emissions to the same absolute amount as Country B. They're both emitting at the same rate.

Per-capita is the only measure that makes sense, otherwise you're evaluating countries by how big their population is, not how wasteful their practices are.

[Arenis]

The reason 'per capita' is used often, is because it counters discrimination based solemnly on size. By averaging the CO2 emission per capita, you can calculate what countries are 'allowed' to emit so that every resident has exactly the same amount. The scope now changes from locally (on a per country basis) to globally. This also enhances the prospect of countries committing to the cause, since everyone will then be treated on an equal basis.

[Elim Garak]

Except you did, in that post.

Except I didn't, you did.

And when presented with a hypothetical breakup of China into 15 separate countries, you insisted they were still just as much an issue, even thought their absolute emissions have dropped massively.

Read again. Their total absolute pollution didn't drop a single iota. Hence why such division doesn't make any sense to begin with.

That's why you're inconsistent.

Because you cannot read? Perhaps.

Per capita tells you which countries are being most wasteful and inefficient.

No it doesn't. all it says is how much pollution per person is produced in the country even though people themselves are not the major source of pollution. Industry is.

Which is the entire point of the evaluation, in the first place.

Nope. Guess again.

If you have two countries with identical per-capita emissions rates, but Country A has 5 times the population of Country B, Country A doesn't need to "do more" to reduce their emissions to the same absolute amount as Country B. They're both emitting at the same rate.

Population is irrelevant. If country is heavy industry, it doesn't matter how many people they have if they pollute the most they need to reduce.
This SJW approach to pollution is killing the environment.

Per-capita is the only measure that makes sense, otherwise you're evaluating countries by how big their population is, not how wasteful their practices are.

Population is irrelevant to pollution, I judge countries by POLLUTION, not population, DUH.

[Ivanstone]

Population is irrelevant to pollution, I judge countries by POLLUTION, not population, DUH.

Ok, let's play your game.
1. China is the only country in the world that pollutes more than the United States. The U.S. has a negative trade balance with China. How much would China's pollution go down if they cut imports to the U.S.?
2. Why does India matter? Their pollution is less than the U.S. Therefore they are better.
3. Of the largest polluters who is doing the most investment into alternative energy?
4. Of the largest polluters who is doing the most investment into oil/gas/coal energy?
5. Exactly how is the economy affected by moving from oil/gas/coal to alternative energy?
6. Who's economy would be the most impacted?
Edit: Bonus round question that is per capita.
7. Canada is a low emitting country but has the highest per capita pollution in the world. Why does Canada suck?

[Endus]

Read again. Their total absolute pollution didn't drop a single iota. Hence why such division doesn't make any sense to begin with.

Again, by arguing this, you're arguing against your earlier point about absolute emissions by nation. You are in fact, leaning towards admitting that per-capita is the better system for evaluating these things.

No it doesn't. all it says is how much pollution per person is produced in the country even though people themselves are not the major source of pollution. Industry is.

Industry doesn't exist in a vacuum. It serves the people of that nation.

This SJW approach to pollution is killing the environment.

Can't make a valid argument, better blame the "SJWs", as if that's anything relevant to anything here.

Population is irrelevant to pollution, I judge countries by POLLUTION, not population, DUH.

Then why were you treating the 15 new hypothetical post-China countries the same as you're treating China now? Their emissions are all 1/15th China's. You're not being consistent in your own stated position.

[Elim Garak]

Again, by arguing this, you're arguing against your earlier point about absolute emissions by nation. You are in fact, leaning towards admitting that per-capita is the better system for evaluating these things.

You have some vivid imagination, are you high?

Industry doesn't exist in a vacuum. It serves the people of that nation.

Is your logic like "because it serves the people of the nation its pollution output is directly linked to the population number"?

Can't make a valid argument, better blame the "SJWs", as if that's anything relevant to anything here.

I didn't blame anyone. I made a valid observation. Dispute that, rather than again attacking my person.

Then why were you treating the 15 new hypothetical post-China countries the same as you're treating China now? Their emissions are all 1/15th China's. You're not being consistent in your own stated position.

I am very consistent. It was your example. You broke China into 15 countries, I just explained to you that even if you break China into a million pieces the total pollution produced WON'T CHANGE.

[Endus]

I didn't blame anyone. I made a valid observation. Dispute that, rather than again attacking my person.

Attacks a bunch of people as "SJWs".
Makes up a claim that other people are attacking his person.

I am very consistent. It was your example. You broke China into 15 countries, I just explained to you that even if you break China into a million pieces the total pollution produced WON'T CHANGE.

By your argument, that national absolute numbers are what matter, it did.

You're straight-up admitting that your position is not based on a reasonable analysis of the numbers. Because you're looking at national totals when it's convenient to you, and not when it isn't.

This is why everyone uses per-capita figures; it removes population size as a biasing factor completely. You just don't want to use it because it highlights the high emissions rate of the USA, and doesn't make China look bad enough for you.

[UnkLegacy]

I am very consistent. It was your example. You broke China into 15 countries, I just explained to you that even if you break China into a million pieces the total pollution produced WON'T CHANGE.

I'm not sure you understand what is being argued here.

Lets take 2 fake countries.

Country A has 100 people. It produces 100ppm of pollution. Or 1ppm per capita.

Country B has 1 person. It produces 50ppm of pollution. Or 50ppm per capita.

You're trying to argue that Country B is cleaner because it produces less pollution because it has a smaller population.

------------------------------

Or taking Endus's example.

Country A has 100 people. Country B has 1 person. A produces 100ppm. B produces 1ppm. Both are 1ppm per capita.

You're arguing that country A is worse because they have more population. When they both produce the exact same amount of pollution.