KV vs Heller – Twitter Part 2 – updated again

by
Mike Norman
My articles My siteAbout meMy booksMy videos
Follow on:TwitterFacebook

This news makes no sense to me.  I read that Australia burned up and is now unlivable.

In 2013, the CSIRO released a report stating that Australia is becoming hotter, and that it will experience more extreme heat and longer fire seasons because of climate change. ... Temperatures in Australia have also risen dramatically since 1910 and nights have become warmer.

The trend is probably 100% due to urbanization (UHI) and data “adjustments”.

The warming corresponds quite well with C02. That must be worth investigating? 

The temperature graph is propaganda, not science.

Tony Heller

Very clever of them to cut off the years before 1910, when it was hotter. 

JD

They also cherry-picked 1961-1990 for the base temperature in KV's posted graph, how convenient that it's a cooler stretch. 

Tony picked one chart out of 100's, maybe 1000's, surely that is cherry-picking par-excellence?

Measures of average temperature changes over time. 
Is it hotter than at any time in the past in Australia? No. As proven by Tony’s chart. The chart you posted doesn’t show a full history (hides data) and is AVERAGE, not highs
Do you expect to see a flat line?

But that's only one place, what we are talking about are average global temperatures, which clearly show global warming.

Global mean surface temperature change since 1880. Baseline temperature[1] is about 14 °C. Source: NASA GISS 

Global mean surface temperature graphs are very inaccurate, and fraught with misinformation due to a lack of stations. Global temperature stations are sparse in many areas of the globe: 

If looks like there are 1000's of them, so surely we can get averages? The statistics will show the trends, as they seem to do.

There is very little high quality long-term temperature data outside of the US

KV

Does that include data from satellites which orbit the Earth?

They’re weren't any satellites in 1920

That's right, as I said in a recent tweet. That's the reason this chart starts where it does.

Tony Heller

The vast majority of those stations are garbage, and do nothing but pollute the data set.  That is why they were excluded from earlier data sets like the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report.

So why aren't these people exposing how the scam is done. They must know the methods as they worked in the industry?

I agree, Tony. Folks have attempted telling me that there is more coverage in GHCN v4. They're correct, but as you and I both said, it pollutes the dataset. As Anthony Watts said, "When you mix good data with bad data, you get more bad data."

But what about Satellite data which corresponds fairly well with the surface? 

CD

Regardless of whatever data is available, from a geologic-time perspective, temp and sea levels have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago. Moreover it's far from a straight-line increases. Any panic over current temps and sea levels ignores this.

CO2 to temp to sea levels looks closely linked here.

Chart of 420,000 year history: temperature, CO2, sea level

Large houses are linked with wealth. 

Therefore, large houses cause wealth.

You didn't watch the video, so you're not really interested in what's happening. All of the records have been tampered with, as Tony has demonstrated time after time after time. 

There are 1000's of climatologists all over the world and they all specialise: glaciers, oceans, surface, trees, satellites, etc. If it's a hoax, how do they coordinate their data? They can't use email, phones, & post bc these would be hacked. Pigeons, perhaps?

I post the massive contradictions in the data almost every day.  You should watch my videos and then get back to me with a better understanding.

But the averages and trends match. Of course there are variations. 

If it was a hoax, the FF co's could easily prove it. They could hire climatologists by paying them excellent money & some would take it. The FF co's are v wealthy & could fund their universities too.

EF

And the vast, vast majority of climate change researchers are mere data scientists, or are working extensively as data scientists. Data science, regardless of the area of study, is an industry of fraud, projecting and extrapolating their opinion and twisting the data to fit.

Surely there are some conservative leaning climatologists that would be up in a arms about such a hoax, especially if it was deemed that liberals were try to raise taxes? Where are they?

They've all been excised from the scientific community and excommunicated. CC alarmism is a cult, complete with an enlightened clergy, dogma, sin, forgiveness, an apocalypse, faithful zealots, and heretics. If you can't see that, you might just be a cult member.

Then they would expose the scam.

EF

And all of their work would immediately be dismissed by CC cultists as tainted. But CC research gets $80 billion a year globally to make sure there is still a problem to study. Big oil only spends around $100 million a year in CC research. BTW, averages goes up if the min does.

Lord help us, you are just too dim to be argued with, unfortunately quite soon even the terminally dim will see the results of the forthcoming solar minimum, 'sgonna get colder pal, a lot, then even you might work it out

 It's not a hoax, it's a scam and the perps are raking in big cash for not rocking the boat. I'm not a climatologist, I do stats and all the stats are rigged, they leave out massive amounts of data which don't fit their agenda, the peer review system is broken because of money

But how do they rig it when they are 1000's of them all over the world, when they can't synchronise their data using electronic communications bc it would get hacked?