KV vs Tony Heller – Twitter Part 3 updated

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

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

Correlation ≠ causation. 

KV

From our science is we know that is not a link, but CO2 is. 

Our science is very good, quantum physics, smart phones, Internet, etc 

World Economic Forum 

 Carbon dioxide makes up 0.041% of the Earth's atmosphere. Here's why that tiny percentage has big consequences

MB

It’s never really worked that way in the geologic record, though. Previous warming events had nothing to do with CO2 emissions.

As you can see in this graph, the sun output has been declining slightly over the last 50 years, while global temperature has gone up.

Tony Heller

People who refer to themself as plural, are not very convincing

1. That's just your opinion 

So, 1000's of researchers all over the world are fiddling their data, but are unable to coordinate their data through electronic media bc it would get hacked 

FF co's could easily expose the scam by paying top whack for climatologists.

2. And their students would wonder what they were doing when the data they help collect gets changed. & the PhD's in other facilities would ask the climatologists how they are getting on, and they would say fine, but be secretly altering the data, unless they are all in on the scam

 3. Surely someone would speak up somewhere with so many people involved? 
And the FF co's wouldn't stand for a hoax, and so would hire the best private detectives to look into it, who would hack emails & pay people good money for facts, etc. But zilch, nothing. Just Lord Monkton.

They did get hacked a while back, and what we learned wasn’t pretty.

Yes, they did get hacked, & that's why we know their emails are fine today, bc they would be hacked. Obviously everything is above board.
That hack you refer too, all of the scientists were cleared of wrongdoing by 8 different tribunals. It turned out there was no hidden data.

Making up and altering data to fit a narrative might be fine in climate science, which is why most unbiased scientists think that “climate science” is a joke. The same behavior in finance or medical research would have resulted in jail time.

1. Secret documents get leaked to the media all the time. With 1000's of climatologists all over the world and their students, with PhD's of other faculties, secretaries, clerks, & computer technicians - who repair the scientist's PCs - you would think that someone would have

2. released damming documents by now?

1. No one is answering by question : how do 1000's of climatologists all over the world coordinate their data when they can't use electronic communications?

2.  But the FF co's could easily afford to do the counter science to expose the 'scam'. It would be a v good investment. They could pay top money for climatologists who I'm sure many of whom would prefer to do 'real science'.

When CO2 rises to its highest point in the non-man-made paleoclimate, Earth's temps stabilize and fall.
When CO2 falls to its lowest point in the non-man-made paleoclimate, Earth's temps abruptly rise.
Can you see where you're going wrong here? ?

KV

1) We use meta analysis of thousands of studies to find trends and averages. 
Meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies. Meta-analysis can be performed when there are multiple scientific studies addressing the same question,

 2) with each individual study reporting measurements that are expected to have some degree of error.

 The "measurements" from the studies referenced in your link ALSO contain "some degree of error", but that didn't stop you presenting them as evidence to support your claim. ?
Your double-standards are quite impressive. ?

They use meta analysis from 1000's of studies to find trends bc there are always blips and anomalies.