Are we using bad data?

Peer review doesn't prove anything there have been so many "peer reviewed" papers retracted because it was garbage or fraud can you tell us how many of Albert Einsteins papers were.... "Peer reviewed" before it was published?

Retraction Watch LINK

There are many papers that were never peer reviewed that are valid and accepted to this day.

 

Oh! Bless! Resorting to childish insults rather than intelligent discourse, eh?

How do you know what it is if it isn't loading for you? --- BTW, it is a PDF file and it takes a while to load even on faster internet (due to its size), so you need to be patient if you wish to view it.

NOAA ignores all of the problems with data measurement with regard to statistical mathematics. I've been through those problems countless times on this forum, and have even gone through them with you before. You, like NOAA, just ignore those problems and pretend that you can "adjust for them" "after the fact". That is called 'cooking the data' (IOW, "making schiff up"), which is not allowed in any statistical analysis. ONLY raw data is allowed.

See above. Cooked data is not allowed.

Yes, they are. They are all ignoring the rules of statistical mathematics. They are all ignoring, for starters, that:

• A target margin of error (say, +- 1 degree Fahrenheit) must be declared at the outset (in order to know what must be done in order to hit that target)
• All thermometers must be uniformly spaced across the whole Earth (this includes its atmosphere, as Earth's atmosphere is also a part of Earth). This is required in order to eliminate location bias.
• All thermometers must be simultaneously read by the same observer. This is required in order to eliminate time bias.
• A variance value must be declared and justified (this value is needed in order to calculate the margin of error). For instance, temperature can easily vary by as much as 20 degrees Fahrenheit per mile. This can be due to a number of things, including the difference between an open asphalt parking lot and a nearby tree-covered forest.
• The margin of error must be calculated and published.

 

He did.

Good thing logic, science, and mathematics don't have any bias.

Peer review is not science.

... and you have not addressed my point about said data being hocus pocus due to the inability to collect it in a manner that adheres to the requirements of statistical mathematics.

 

Peer review is not a "holy blessing" either...

 

Peer review is not a requirement of science.

Obviously YOU don't, since you believe peer review to be science as well as some kind of holy ritual.

 

Peer review does not magically transform anything into science either.

 

There is no such thing as "global warming temps". What are you even talking about?

 

Why interpretation of the temperature record leads researchers astray.

Urban night lighting observations challenge interpretation of land surface temperature observations
Posted on December 17, 2022 by curryja | 34 comments
by Alan Longhurst

The pattern of warming of surface air temperature recorded by the instrumental data is accepted almost without question by the science community as being the consequence of the progressive and global contamination of the atmosphere by CO2. But if they were properly inquisitive, it would not take them long see what was wrong with that over-simplification: the evidence is perfectly clear, and simple enough for any person of good will to understand.

Continue reading →

 

She ignored my Retraction Watch link completely that makes clear "peer reviewed" papers can still be junk and retracted her deliberate passing over my post is evidence that she is deeply biased to the point of irrational.

POST 26

 

Right. She considers peer review to be a "holy blessing" of sorts. That seems like rather religious behavior coming from someone who claims to not be religious...

Peer review is essentially specialized proofreading. It's generally a good thing to do, but it is not a requirement of science nor does it magically transform anything into being science. As you said, plenty of peer reviewed papers can be, and are, complete garbage... and a number of non-peer-reviewed papers are just fine.

 

Are you actually pretending you read it?

Come on. No denier reads their own garbage. They just read the headline and then parrot it. That's how propagandists roll.

The funny part? They can't even be consistent with their "you must refute my crank link by a paid propagandist word by word or I win!" sleaze, since if you show them your links refute it, they'll handwave it all away.

Oh, the refuation ...

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...hecking-talking-point-about-corrupted-climat/

Now watch the deniers all suddenly become allergic to reading a link ... anyways, by their standards, if they don't read it and refute it, I win.

 

Dude, we get it. You've never taken a statistics course in your life. There's no need to keep hammering on that point.

Have you wondered why you'll only post in a Safespace, while climate scientists have the respect of the world?

That's right, it's because of the VastSecretGlobalSocialistConspiracy.

Well, good luck with that.

 

Your uninformed name calling fails against our data.
READ THE REPORT (PDF).

 

W

So, you seriously think you can start a conversation by calling me a liar? And a "denier". Sorry, no.

 

Ignorance begets obnoxiousness.

 

Bla bla bla....., you didn't address anything he posted.

Try again.

 

LOL

You didn't address it at all just a deflection to a misleading link that doesn't address it either.

Try harder next time.

 

Lols! Heartland - since when did they publish anything that was not a paid opinion piece of the Koch Bros?

 

This is why not a few have ended up on my “ignore” list. Every so often I rewrite that list and if they play games like this they go back on it.

Truth is since the IPCC findings have been adopted by governments world wide the denialists are doing nothing except talking to each other.

 

Ahhhh! Peer review may fail occasionally but lack of it is very very telling

 

Then you have nothing thus the report remains unchallenged, and your retort is foolish.

 

But of course, you can't admit the numerous retractions which is VERY revealing.

 

Meanwhile the report Jack posted remains unaddressed thus you and Mamooth failed, and the IPCC has been wrong too many times to be credible anymore.

 

Your issue, not mine.

Right, so why do you keep hammering on it and keep attempting to project it onto me?

Is PoliticalForum a safespace? I'm making my posts for anyone and everyone to see. I don't ignore anyone. I don't thread ban anyone (on forums that allow that). I'm willing to speak to anyone and everyone.

There is no such thing as a "climate scientist". It's just a meaningless buzzword.

No idea what you are referring to.

Same to you.

 

You are remarkably uninformed.
REPLY TO OUR CRITICSComplete responses to the many ill-informed critics of The Heartland Institute.

• IS THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE FUNDED BY THE KOCH BROTHERS?
  No. Neither Charles Koch nor David Koch — nor any Koch family charitable foundation — is a current or regular contributor to The Heartland Institute. Koch Industries has never funded The Heartland Institute.
  
  The Charles G. Koch Foundation in 2012 donated $25,000 to Heartland to support our work promoting free-market health care solutions, not climate issues. That is a paltry sum (0.36 percent) in our organization’s $7 million budget. That single donation — to support our work on health care issues — was the only Koch-connected contribution to Heartland in nearly two decades. [Important note: Heartland didn’t begin to support and promote scientists who are skeptical of human-caused climate catastrophe until 2008.]
  
  The “Koch Brothers” generously support many nonprofit organizations that promote free markets and individual liberty. The Heartland Institute is not among them. Our policy positions, at any rate, are based on principle. We are not a “pay to play” organization.