Are we using bad data?

Which are what percentage of the overall publications in the field?

 

Oh! Dear! Got citations because I can only think of a couple and those were addressed

And again the IPCC is what is being used by governments throughout the world to guide policy. You want to stop action on climate change? Get off the internet and petition your politician

 

You are using the written excuses from heartland itself as a cover?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/heartland-institute/



https://climateinvestigations.org/who-is-paying-for-heartland-institute-climate-denial-palooza/

 

The "Heartland Insider" leaked document was a forgery.
New Evidence Released in Fakegate Global Warming Scandal
2012 › 05 › 01 › new-evidence-released-in-fakegate-global-warming-scandal
fake Heartland ‘Climate Strategy Memo’ concludes Peter Gleick is the likely forger ... more evidence that Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick was the likely author of a fake “climate

Beyond that, you've not presented anything to tie Heartland to Koch.
As for not revealing donor names, that's actually not uncommon, and it's done for the same reason we have the secret ballot in voting.
As I said, you are remarkably uninformed.

 

Once again you offer nothing of substance and yes, the IPCC has been wrong before.

You are too lazy to explore the link I gave you which is why you continue to be profoundly ignorant.

 

You didn't read in the link and the question is absurd.

 

There was a link?

OK found it read it

You grok the word “anecdotal” yes?

 

Jack stop it! I am laughing too hard! Using WUWT to validate ANYTHING to do with heartland is…….shakes head

Where do you think WUWT gets its main funding? Anthony (who was a J6 conspirator) is a senior fellow at Heartland

https://www.desmog.com/anthony-watts/

 

You are trying to make an argument from your own uninformed prejudice. Not persuasive. WUWT is not funded by Heartland. I present evidence; you reply with a form of bigotry. I'm happy to let the contrast stand in public for comparison.

 

Jack. We have known who is funding what since the late 90s when Exxon was outed. The fact that Watts is a Senior Fellow at Heartland is hardly a secret - it is part of his resume for heavens sake!

 

"Exxon was outed" is just another myth. Watts's role with Heartland is unexceptional and there's no indication it is compensated.

 

Well, who is paying his bills then?

Follow the money

 

WUWT is the most-visited climate site in the world and has long since been self-sustaining; that is how Watts pays his bills.
Blog Stats

• 480,154,867 hits

 

By whom? And when?

Because he is not in that position anymore
https://blog.feedspot.com/climate_change_blogs/

 

Hmmm. What makes you think that list is in order of number of visits?
Watts Up With That?
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

 

What makes you think Watts claim is currently accurate? He has been caught stretching the truth around this before

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That?

 

"Watts caught stretching the truth" is another of your myths. Alexa internet was shut down in 2022. Meanwhile:
Watts Up With That?
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

 

~ So is fake science.

​

 

As a Moderator (LINK) I can see the data for the blog here is some data,

In last 30 days: 4,058,388 pageviews

As of today 28,990, Posts have been published with 4 more scheduled to be published soon.

In the last minute there are 3,514,914 approved Comments listed.

To date 638,611 Spam comments have been blocked.

 

I gave a link that refuted it all. By your standards, that means I win, because you didn't refute every single word in my link. Thanks for playing, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including our Political Forums home game.

If you'd like to actually debate instead of declaring "BUT I GAVE A LINK!", I encourage that. State a point clearly and directly, in your own words, back it up with hard data (instead of a weird opinion piece) and we'll discuss it.

If you had actually read your own link, you understood it, and it made sense, that wouldn't be a problem for you. Not strangely, it clearly is a problem for you. If you take any of the deniers here off-script, they're completely helpless.

 

Sorry, but that's just more uninformed name calling. Fact is that your link was a swing and a miss. The data are the data.

". . . The 2009 report found 89 percent of stations were unacceptable by NOAA’s own standards. The 2022 report found an even greater percentage of stations—approximately 96 percent—are sited unacceptably. The official U.S. temperature record, which was shown in 2009 to be heat-biased due to poor siting issues, appears to be even more biased in 2022.
• Of the 128 stations surveyed, only two were found to be a Class 1 (best-sited) station: the Dubois, Idaho Agricultural Experiment Farm, and the St. Joseph, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Farm.
• Three stations were found to be Class 2 (acceptably sited).
• The remaining 123 stations were found to be Class 3, 4, and 5, and therefore considered unacceptably sited in accordance with Leroy’s classification system and NOAA publication 10-1302.
• The 7 percent increase in unacceptably sited stations from 2009 to 2022 seems to be in line with the Gallo and Xian study noting the increase in ISAs near USHCN stations. . . . "

 

If you don't want your bad behavior highlighted, don't engage in bad behavior. Either all links have to be accepted at face value, or they don't. Your "MY OWN LINKS MAY NOT BE QUESTIONED, BUT YOURS CAN BE IGNORED" policy is not intellectually honest.

And the link addressed that.

First, those are the volunteer run stations, not the official ones.

And second, use of anomalies handles that.

We know your theory is wrong. Why?

If your theory was right, urban stations would show more warming than rural stations.

That is not the case. As shown in a bunch of studies, there is no difference in the trend between urban and rural areas.

The data doesn't agree with your theory, therefore your theory is wrong. No amount of handwaving on your part will change that.

 

The new report is not about 2009.
". . . The chart below, found on page 17 of the report, shows 30 years of data from NOAA temperature stations in the Continental United States (CONUS). The blue lines show recorded temperatures and the trend from stations that comply with NOAA’s published standards. The yellow lines are temperatures taken from stations that are not compliant with those standards (i.e. near artificial hot spots). The red lines are the “official” adjusted temperature released by NOAA.


“If you look at the unperturbed stations that adhere to NOAA’s published standard – ones that are correctly located and free of localized urban heat biases – they display about half the rate of warming compared to perturbed stations that have such biases,” Watts said. “Yet, NOAA continues to use the data from their warm-biased century-old surface temperature networks to produce monthly and yearly reports to the U.S. public on the state of the climate.”

“The issue of localized heat-bias with these stations has been proven in a real-world experiment conducted by NOAA’s laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and published in a peer reviewed science journal.” Watts added.

“By contrast, NOAA operates a state-of-the-art surface temperature network called the U.S. Climate Reference Network,” Watts said. “It is free of localized heat biases by design, but the data it produces is never mentioned in monthly or yearly climate reports published by NOAA for public consumption. . . . ."

New Surface Stations Report Released - It's 'worse than we thought'
2022 › 07 › 27 › new-surface-stations-report-released-its-worse-than-we-thought
original 2009 surface stations project demonstrated conclusively that the federal government’s surface temperature ... The Heartland Institute who surveyed NOAA surface stations himself this spring. “This new study is evidence

 

Gee, Politifact (Political Fact Checker, NOT Scientific Fact Checker) turns in the predictable slanted decision - Imagine my surprise.

 

I'm not sure why your brought 2009 into things.

Raw data from all sites is corrected using the pristine USCRN sites.

After the corrections ... the network as a whole gives the same results as the pristine stations. Oops, there goes the conspiracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ure-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine

Where did Heartland pull its numbers from? Nobody really knows. But it's for certain they didn't do any of the correcting that NOAA does, so their stuff is worthless, just a propaganda ploy.