| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" 09:56 - Nov 18 with 25855 views | sP7qupUf |
Is this a genuine attempt to address pressing issues or a smokescreen to detract away from the ongoing issues with the C-19 pandemic, emerging issues around cronyism and the potential disaster with the "oven ready" Brexit deal? The lack of detail would suggest the latter to my mind. |  | | |  |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:57 - Nov 23 with 1491 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:52 - Nov 23 by Scotia |
I'm not going to quote AFD's two most recent posts.
But they are both pretty much completely wrong. |
I provide facts and you provide an opinion at the same time as ignoring the facts.
Fine, it just goes to prove my points even more. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:12 - Nov 23 with 1484 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:57 - Nov 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
I provide facts and you provide an opinion at the same time as ignoring the facts.
Fine, it just goes to prove my points even more. |
No you don't. You post nonsense.
My opinion is a professional opinion.
There is very little that is accurate in those posts what is accurate is irrelevant. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:34 - Nov 23 with 1478 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:12 - Nov 23 by Scotia |
No you don't. You post nonsense.
My opinion is a professional opinion.
There is very little that is accurate in those posts what is accurate is irrelevant. |
Well, as you are so certain I would expect at a minimum a list of the all the things I have got wrong with rebuttals and a list of what is accurate and why it does not matter.
The Charts do not lie, the data is there for everyone to see, itis official NASA data.
You should (and every other meteoroligist) be absolutley livid that all your careful dedicated work ensuring that the data you have seen or collected from the weather stations is as accurate as it can be can just be completely changed by a bunch of so called scientists in the USA that makes nonsense of your work.
I do not understand why you are not. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:41 - Nov 23 with 1476 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:34 - Nov 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
Well, as you are so certain I would expect at a minimum a list of the all the things I have got wrong with rebuttals and a list of what is accurate and why it does not matter.
The Charts do not lie, the data is there for everyone to see, itis official NASA data.
You should (and every other meteoroligist) be absolutley livid that all your careful dedicated work ensuring that the data you have seen or collected from the weather stations is as accurate as it can be can just be completely changed by a bunch of so called scientists in the USA that makes nonsense of your work.
I do not understand why you are not. |
Genuinely this post would be too long if I rebutted everything. I'm not being big headed that's a fact not opinion.
Urban heat islands, foehn winds, airport weather stations and Anthony Watts' study are all wrong or irrelevant and that is just from what I can remember. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:51 - Nov 23 with 1466 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:41 - Nov 23 by Scotia |
Genuinely this post would be too long if I rebutted everything. I'm not being big headed that's a fact not opinion.
Urban heat islands, foehn winds, airport weather stations and Anthony Watts' study are all wrong or irrelevant and that is just from what I can remember. |
Anthony Watts study acknowledged by NASA, quoted in Scientific papers that found totally inaccurate, not fit for purpose weather stations all over the US network is not relevant to the study of climate change.
OK.
I was trying to shed some light on the situation for Cat, but you rubbish what I say without one single thread of evidence.
In fact you haven't shown one shred of evidence other than you know what homogenisation is since this started.
Were you trained at the University of East Anglia? [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 13:04]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:21 - Nov 23 with 1451 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:51 - Nov 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
Anthony Watts study acknowledged by NASA, quoted in Scientific papers that found totally inaccurate, not fit for purpose weather stations all over the US network is not relevant to the study of climate change.
OK.
I was trying to shed some light on the situation for Cat, but you rubbish what I say without one single thread of evidence.
In fact you haven't shown one shred of evidence other than you know what homogenisation is since this started.
Were you trained at the University of East Anglia? [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 13:04]
|
Nope Cardiff, Swansea and Birmingham.
Which is three more than the completely unqualified Anthony Watts.
His "study" isn't worth the paper it's written on. He's a climate change denier who enlisted other deniers to take photos of climate sites and send them to his blog. He didn't visit the sites himself. Do you think this is objective?
I've accompanied many Met Office sites audit visits, who many do you think couldn't be faulted at all? Just one, in Penman, that used to be run by the old Swansea Sound weatherman John Powell. Does that mean they record inaccurate data? Absolutely not. They are perfectly accurate otherwise they would fail an audit and not be registered and used by the Met Office. A met site isn't run under laboratory conditions which is why validation is required.
The Met Office visit sites on a regular basis, they do not rely on photographs because they aren't accurate enough. I'll remind you Anthony Watts did not visit sites for his study.
Anyway, even if these site were recording false warming trends because they were poor then good sites wouldn't record these same trends. But guess what? They do record these trends because they are happening.
So Anthony Watts study is both wrong and irrelevant. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:36 - Nov 23 with 1449 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:21 - Nov 23 by Scotia |
Nope Cardiff, Swansea and Birmingham.
Which is three more than the completely unqualified Anthony Watts.
His "study" isn't worth the paper it's written on. He's a climate change denier who enlisted other deniers to take photos of climate sites and send them to his blog. He didn't visit the sites himself. Do you think this is objective?
I've accompanied many Met Office sites audit visits, who many do you think couldn't be faulted at all? Just one, in Penman, that used to be run by the old Swansea Sound weatherman John Powell. Does that mean they record inaccurate data? Absolutely not. They are perfectly accurate otherwise they would fail an audit and not be registered and used by the Met Office. A met site isn't run under laboratory conditions which is why validation is required.
The Met Office visit sites on a regular basis, they do not rely on photographs because they aren't accurate enough. I'll remind you Anthony Watts did not visit sites for his study.
Anyway, even if these site were recording false warming trends because they were poor then good sites wouldn't record these same trends. But guess what? They do record these trends because they are happening.
So Anthony Watts study is both wrong and irrelevant. |
I think that NASA is a far better judge of it's worth than you.
They eventually agreed it was correct and took steps to improve the sites and to not use the worst sites for any comparison or trend work.
You love to attack the person instead of the data, it is the classic attack mode of climate change zealot and activists.
But you lose yet again, you are batting zero all the way.
Carry on though so that anybody reading this post can see how truly clueless you are about what has actually been going on with temperature data as shown by that, chart, I have another 20 or so showing the same trend corruption from different countries.
I haven't even got around to the Australian BOM corruption yet, which is even worse. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:34 - Nov 23 with 1429 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:36 - Nov 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
I think that NASA is a far better judge of it's worth than you.
They eventually agreed it was correct and took steps to improve the sites and to not use the worst sites for any comparison or trend work.
You love to attack the person instead of the data, it is the classic attack mode of climate change zealot and activists.
But you lose yet again, you are batting zero all the way.
Carry on though so that anybody reading this post can see how truly clueless you are about what has actually been going on with temperature data as shown by that, chart, I have another 20 or so showing the same trend corruption from different countries.
I haven't even got around to the Australian BOM corruption yet, which is even worse. |
I'm not attacking the person I'm just pointing out that he doesn't hold a single qualification.
Its very interesting that NASA improved the sites but utterly irrelevant as the tens of thousands of good sites around the world still record a warming trend. These sites are run by organisations such as the Met Office and some organisation called the NWS who actually run the network of Met stations in the USA. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:58 - Nov 23 with 1419 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:34 - Nov 23 by Scotia |
I'm not attacking the person I'm just pointing out that he doesn't hold a single qualification.
Its very interesting that NASA improved the sites but utterly irrelevant as the tens of thousands of good sites around the world still record a warming trend. These sites are run by organisations such as the Met Office and some organisation called the NWS who actually run the network of Met stations in the USA. |
He does not need any qualifications, he only needs an enquiring mind, something you obviously lack.
You just don't get it do you.
The raw data in most cases does not show the warming trend and if it does it is nowhere near as steep as the NASA/GISS global data.
Because the upward trend is in the adjustments.
They even bloody well tell you it is on their website.
But they only admit to 0.5 degrees F not a whole degree or two whole degrees.
You really don't know do you?
There can be no possible justification to then change the RAW data from one version of GISS to the next increasing the trend even more.
Enough, is enough, you argue from your beliefs and not from the facts, I am really done. [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 17:11]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:10 - Nov 23 with 1415 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:58 - Nov 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
He does not need any qualifications, he only needs an enquiring mind, something you obviously lack.
You just don't get it do you.
The raw data in most cases does not show the warming trend and if it does it is nowhere near as steep as the NASA/GISS global data.
Because the upward trend is in the adjustments.
They even bloody well tell you it is on their website.
But they only admit to 0.5 degrees F not a whole degree or two whole degrees.
You really don't know do you?
There can be no possible justification to then change the RAW data from one version of GISS to the next increasing the trend even more.
Enough, is enough, you argue from your beliefs and not from the facts, I am really done. [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 17:11]
|
It doesn't matter if I argue from my beliefs or your interpretation of facts, I've managed to dismiss everything you say regarding climate change.
Who needs a qualification when you are funded by the Heartland Institute, who in turn are funded by one of the largest oil companies in the world? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:17 - Nov 23 with 1412 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:10 - Nov 23 by Scotia |
It doesn't matter if I argue from my beliefs or your interpretation of facts, I've managed to dismiss everything you say regarding climate change.
Who needs a qualification when you are funded by the Heartland Institute, who in turn are funded by one of the largest oil companies in the world? |
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:38 - Nov 23 with 1405 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:17 - Nov 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
|
Thing is, assuming Scotia is right, I would have very much trouble believing in a climtae denier who is funded by an oil company.
Corporate giants be they oil, tobacco or whatever, spend a lot of money on spin. They spend a lot covering their tracks too.
Even the NHS has a budget allocation for paying off whistleblowers, who have to sign non disclosure agreements.
There are cover ups everywhere. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:31 - Nov 23 with 1404 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:38 - Nov 23 by Catullus |
Thing is, assuming Scotia is right, I would have very much trouble believing in a climtae denier who is funded by an oil company.
Corporate giants be they oil, tobacco or whatever, spend a lot of money on spin. They spend a lot covering their tracks too.
Even the NHS has a budget allocation for paying off whistleblowers, who have to sign non disclosure agreements.
There are cover ups everywhere. |
He was paid to do one specific job, as in a contract and not by Heartland, you really should read his about page to understand how a TV meteorologist presenter pushing global warming ended up running the most famous climate website in the world.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/about2/
And his FAQs here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/faqs/
The data that was collected for the surface station project was photographs and dimensions of poorly sited stations.
If you do not wish to believe him perhaps you are prepared to believe the American MetOffice
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0002.1
You can also read Mr Watt's post on it here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/03/big-news-verified-by-noaa-poor-weather-st
With a link to photos of some of the worst sites
You see Scotia jumps on the internet to try and discredit what I say and who I refer to and finds just what he wants posted by organisations that try and discredit "deniers" instead of actually looking at the data.
I really don't mind because it is all he has got. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:57 - Nov 23 with 1400 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:31 - Nov 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
He was paid to do one specific job, as in a contract and not by Heartland, you really should read his about page to understand how a TV meteorologist presenter pushing global warming ended up running the most famous climate website in the world.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/about2/
And his FAQs here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/faqs/
The data that was collected for the surface station project was photographs and dimensions of poorly sited stations.
If you do not wish to believe him perhaps you are prepared to believe the American MetOffice
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0002.1
You can also read Mr Watt's post on it here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/03/big-news-verified-by-noaa-poor-weather-st
With a link to photos of some of the worst sites
You see Scotia jumps on the internet to try and discredit what I say and who I refer to and finds just what he wants posted by organisations that try and discredit "deniers" instead of actually looking at the data.
I really don't mind because it is all he has got. |
But you're just doing the same in the other direction!
Ihave just looked at Watts, he is a formr weatherman with no degree qualifications, he went to Uni but didn't graduate.
He worked for Heartland and, regardless of the oil company, Heartland lobbied against USA health regulations, they were questioning whether there were serious risks to second hand smoke. They still stand up for "smokers rights" and they have had funding from coal, oil, big pharma, tobacco, financial and alcohol companies. All people with things to hide
Good grief AFD, if that is the kind of company Heartland are then I'm out. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:05 - Nov 23 with 1397 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:57 - Nov 23 by Catullus |
But you're just doing the same in the other direction!
Ihave just looked at Watts, he is a formr weatherman with no degree qualifications, he went to Uni but didn't graduate.
He worked for Heartland and, regardless of the oil company, Heartland lobbied against USA health regulations, they were questioning whether there were serious risks to second hand smoke. They still stand up for "smokers rights" and they have had funding from coal, oil, big pharma, tobacco, financial and alcohol companies. All people with things to hide
Good grief AFD, if that is the kind of company Heartland are then I'm out. |
I see, I didn't present any facts, I haven't attacked anybody he linked to because he hasn't?
OK, so you didn't read Anthony Watts about me and frequently asked questions.
Enough said. [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 19:27]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:13 - Nov 23 with 1379 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:31 - Nov 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
He was paid to do one specific job, as in a contract and not by Heartland, you really should read his about page to understand how a TV meteorologist presenter pushing global warming ended up running the most famous climate website in the world.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/about2/
And his FAQs here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/faqs/
The data that was collected for the surface station project was photographs and dimensions of poorly sited stations.
If you do not wish to believe him perhaps you are prepared to believe the American MetOffice
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0002.1
You can also read Mr Watt's post on it here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/03/big-news-verified-by-noaa-poor-weather-st
With a link to photos of some of the worst sites
You see Scotia jumps on the internet to try and discredit what I say and who I refer to and finds just what he wants posted by organisations that try and discredit "deniers" instead of actually looking at the data.
I really don't mind because it is all he has got. |
What do you think that paper from ametsoc says?
Oh dear, I've just started to read his blog article. He has to explain to his readers what diurnal is. [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 21:15]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:38 - Nov 23 with 1367 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:13 - Nov 23 by Scotia |
What do you think that paper from ametsoc says?
Oh dear, I've just started to read his blog article. He has to explain to his readers what diurnal is. [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 21:15]
|
You do understand that his site has had over 438 Million views since it was set up in 2007, it is the most popular Climate site in the world.
He caters for every level of blogger.
You should see the expertise of some of the posters and commentators on his forum, you would be surprised.
You never know you might actually learn something. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:58 - Nov 23 with 1365 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:38 - Nov 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
You do understand that his site has had over 438 Million views since it was set up in 2007, it is the most popular Climate site in the world.
He caters for every level of blogger.
You should see the expertise of some of the posters and commentators on his forum, you would be surprised.
You never know you might actually learn something. |
I've just learned that he hasn't just done one piece of work for the Heartland Institute as he says on his blog.
The surface station report was published under the auspices of the Heartland Institute and he is a regular speaker at their climate change conferences.
He's a stooge.
Have you examined the actual met data from the sites that his report says are poorly sited and recording inaccurate data? I've had a very quick look, I've also had a look at the sites that the report considers to be of a good or excellent standard. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 22:05 - Nov 23 with 1363 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:58 - Nov 23 by Scotia |
I've just learned that he hasn't just done one piece of work for the Heartland Institute as he says on his blog.
The surface station report was published under the auspices of the Heartland Institute and he is a regular speaker at their climate change conferences.
He's a stooge.
Have you examined the actual met data from the sites that his report says are poorly sited and recording inaccurate data? I've had a very quick look, I've also had a look at the sites that the report considers to be of a good or excellent standard. |
Most Climate sceptics speak at the Heartland conferences, so you accusation is meaningless.
What did you think of the good to excellent sites considering that they use the US standard of assessment? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 07:50 - Nov 24 with 1344 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 22:05 - Nov 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
Most Climate sceptics speak at the Heartland conferences, so you accusation is meaningless.
What did you think of the good to excellent sites considering that they use the US standard of assessment? |
Of course it isn't meaningless. It is a huge conflict of interest.
He's compiled a report from information collected by other climate deniers (who he needs to define very basic terms for), using completely inadequate audit methods, at cherry picked sites, hasn't visited the sites himself, has absolutely no relevant qualifications, published under the auspices of an organisation funded by Exxon and what he has produced is utterly irrelevant because..........
The network as a whole demonstrates a clear warming trend, a warming trend which is demonstrated exactly by the sites his "study" considered to be at least of a good standard.
So what was the relevance of the Ametsoc paper you published/ | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 08:27 - Nov 24 with 1339 views | felixstowe_jack |
Why has this interesting thread been hijacked. I wish you teo would continue your argument in private let the rest of us discuss our warming climate and the efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 09:00 - Nov 24 with 1331 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 08:27 - Nov 24 by felixstowe_jack |
Why has this interesting thread been hijacked. I wish you teo would continue your argument in private let the rest of us discuss our warming climate and the efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. |
I completely agree. The diversion to climate change was brought about by AFD. There have been enough climate change threads in the past, they've all gone the same way. This topic was my education and is my profession, if I see rubbish posted I will call it out. That's why they run in to multiple pages. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 09:38 - Nov 24 with 1327 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 09:00 - Nov 24 by Scotia |
I completely agree. The diversion to climate change was brought about by AFD. There have been enough climate change threads in the past, they've all gone the same way. This topic was my education and is my profession, if I see rubbish posted I will call it out. That's why they run in to multiple pages. |
I am doing my bit with solar panels and EV. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 10:26 - Nov 24 with 1320 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:38 - Nov 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
You do understand that his site has had over 438 Million views since it was set up in 2007, it is the most popular Climate site in the world.
He caters for every level of blogger.
You should see the expertise of some of the posters and commentators on his forum, you would be surprised.
You never know you might actually learn something. |
438 million views doesn't mean anything to me. How many of those 438 million believed what was there or went away laughing, how many are serious scientists and how many are crackpots, how many ended up there by accident by clicking the wrong link maybe? How many of them are repeat visits?
There are many millions of football fans across the world but how many of us know sweet FA about football?
We have plenty of experts in government who seem to know nothing too.
Reading Scotia's post, why would he misrepresent how many times he's worked for Haertland? Or why would you, I can give you the benefit of the doubt though.
Finally, I guess, there are experts in the same fields across the world and they don't all agree. That is an absolute truth. So you carry on believeing what you choose to believe and I'll carry on thinking humans are damaging ecosystems, destroying environments, poisoning the seas, polluting the air we breath and we need to do something about it. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:15 - Nov 24 with 1308 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 07:50 - Nov 24 by Scotia |
Of course it isn't meaningless. It is a huge conflict of interest.
He's compiled a report from information collected by other climate deniers (who he needs to define very basic terms for), using completely inadequate audit methods, at cherry picked sites, hasn't visited the sites himself, has absolutely no relevant qualifications, published under the auspices of an organisation funded by Exxon and what he has produced is utterly irrelevant because..........
The network as a whole demonstrates a clear warming trend, a warming trend which is demonstrated exactly by the sites his "study" considered to be at least of a good standard.
So what was the relevance of the Ametsoc paper you published/ |
I see and being paid by the Governmentor or the UN to produce the results the Government and the UN want is not a conflict of interest.
It is about time you got real and realized that Scientists provide the payer with what they want.
Do you disagree with data and photos of the Stations showing that they do not meet NASA's standards for the simplest of reasons or the ones that do meet the standard?
Did you look at all the photos?
Come to that do you even know the US standard?
If not, the rest is immaterial, anybody can take photos and videos that show the truth, you definitly do not need a Phd to do so.
You just continue to use personal attacks of the people doing the survey.
I have already explained and you refuse to acknowledge that there is no, or very little warming trend in the Raw data in the USA, the warming trend is from the adjustments as declared by NASA, you obviously have not read the Menne2009 paper which is not just applied to the USA, but all world temperatures.
You also have also completely failed to explain the mass adjusments to the Chart I have posted. It is also a telling fact that you have not bothered to ask for more examples, which I have available.
The Ametsoc study showed that small scale Urban encroachement increased warming both during day and at night but more so at night lowering the diurnal difference which is reflected in the whole of the global Temperature record.
It stands to reason that large scale Urban encroachment will have an even larger affect.
It therefore also stands to reason that badly sited stations, ie too close to airt conditioning unit's exhausts, Jet engines and asphalt will also increase that difference and create more day and night time warming. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
