Patterico's Pontifications

12/17/2010

“World Public Opinion” Proves It is Ignorant About Significant Facts

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 1:06 pm

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

It’s really kind of a tedious thing.  Every week or so, liberals come up with another allegedly scientific study declaring that conservatives are stupid, misinformed, psychologically abnormal or something.  Today, it comes from an organization I never heard of before, called World Public Opinion.  This study is being touted by the spectacularly misinformed TPM as proof that Fox News leaves viewers misinformed.

But the hilarious part is that the authors of the study themselves are misinformed.  For instance, their first question is this “is it your impression that most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation: A) created or saved several million jobs, B) saved or created a few jobs, or C) caused job losses.”  The first option is marked as correct.

Now first, that is an ambiguous question.  Do they mean net or gross?  In other words, do they mean the number of jobs “saved or created” numbered in the millions with or without it being offset by the number of jobs lost?  Because it is self-evidently true we have lost more jobs than we have gained.

But here’s the funny part.  Scroll down to the part where they allegedly prove what is the correct answer and read closely.  They offer two pieces of proof of their claim that the first answer is correct.  First they say:

“[The] CBO concluded that for the third quarter of 2010, ARRA had “increased the number of full time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 to 5.2 million compared to what those amounts would have been otherwise.”

But there are two problems with that.  First, um, we are going to trust the government to estimate the success of the government on this?  Really?

Second, that utterly fails to relate to the question, which is whether a majority of economists who studied the question believe this to be the case.

They do a little better with their second piece of evidence:

“Since 2003, the Wall Street Journal has maintained a panel of 55-60 economists which it questions regularly, in an effort to move beyond anecdotal reporting of expert opinion… In March 2010 the panel was asked more broadly about the effect of the ARRA on growth. Seventy-five percent said it was a net positive.”

Which is better, but again doesn’t prove the assertion.  First, once again, there is no evidence that this represents the majority of economists.  Second, there is no evidence they studied the issue—they could just be shooting their mouths off, or maybe even just trusting the CBO.  Third, growth is not the same as creating (or, barf, saving) jobs.  And fourth even then all they said was it was a “net positive” which lines up with answer B, not answer A, which they marked as correct.

They don’t fare any better with the next question: “Is it your impression that among economists who have estimated the effect of the health care reform law on the federal budget deficit over the next ten years: a) more think it will not increase the deficit, b) views are evenly divided, and c) more think it will increase the deficit.”  Allegedly A is the correct answer.

And once again, they go to the CBO, which everyone knows was manipulated by being required to make assumptions, like that Congress would not pass laws (like the Doc Fix) it ultimately did pass, stating that:

In March 2010 CBO released an estimate of how the then-pending health care legislation would affect the deficit if passed. CBO calculated that the net effect through 2019 would be to reduce the deficit by $124 billion (this figure excludes the education provisions that were also part of the legislation). Beyond 2019, the CBO estimated that the Affordable Care Act would reduce the deficit by roughly 0.5% of GDP.

But not only does that suffer from the same problem of having nothing to do with the opinion of economists who study it, but it’s also contradicted by later reports.  For instance in August of this year, the Washington Times wrote:

The [CBO’s] latest projections suggest that the net increase in the deficit attributable to the federal health care law will exceed a quarter-trillion dollars over the next decade.

And meanwhile they don’t even bother to quote the WSJ (why not?), but instead quote from Medicare Trustees:

Regarding Medicare’s contribution to the overall budget deficit, the 2010 annual report of the Boards of Trustees of the Medicare trust funds stated that “The financial status of the HI (Hospital Insurance) trust fund is substantially improved by the lower expenditures and additional tax revenues instituted by the Affordable Care Act. These changes are estimated to postpone the exhaustion of HI trust fund assets from 2017 under the prior law to 2029 under current law and to 2028 under the alternative scenario” (a model that made harsher assumptions). The trustees assessed that overall, “The Affordable Care Act improves the financial outlook for Medicare substantially,” although “the effects of some of the new law’s provisions on Medicare are not known at this time.”

Which not only doesn’t support their assertion in any way, shape or form, but if anything tends to undercut their claims.  If Medicare is in better financial shape does that suggest a reduction in spending?  It seems to me that the more well-funded a federal program is, the less likely we are to see deficit reduction.  Indeed an increase in spending necessarily results in an increase in the deficit unless it is offset by cuts somewhere else.

What this study is, is really a political paper pretending to be a scientific paper.  Which shouldn’t be surprising given the list of supporters they have.  Its funny how the same people keep turning up.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

98 Responses to ““World Public Opinion” Proves It is Ignorant About Significant Facts”

  1. And the same methodology each time, intentionally confuse opinion with fact. And then condemn those who don’t share their dubious opinions as stupid.

    Just like the poor patch of trolls we have here.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. SPQR

    you said a mouthful.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  3. No doubt that “expert” study is already a link on Wash Monthly.

    Mike K (568408)

  4. It seems like since the beginnings of this economic debacle, nearly everyone with power or influence has some vested interest in either denying the problem or insisting the “solutions” are working. Left and right, Dem, Republican or independent. No difference.

    Probably all underwater on their McMansions..

    carol (5a5d33)

  5. This is the study that rawstory, etal have been pushing, and the stalkerish trolls have dutifully spit back out.

    JD (07faa1)

  6. is it your impression that most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation

    Well, to be fair, that question doesn’t really ask what the economists say… it asks what the reader’s impression is. Basically, it’s trying to determine if the propaganda is effective.

    For the average TPM reader, the correct answer probably is (A); he or she believes that economists say it’s been effective, regardless of any actual accomplishment.

    malclave (1db6c5)

  7. WORLD PUBLIC OPINION

    Does the “world” really have an opinion of FOX news?

    rab (7a9e13)

  8. We recommend Trident for our patients who chew gum.

    Four Out Five Dentists Surveyed (Mitch) (890cbf)

  9. Don’t stop there, Aaron. The “report” also marked “incorrect” a belief that Gorebal Warming isn’t happening. Yet even the AGW crowd recently has had to admit that there ain’t no warming (measured) since the early 1990s — and, apparently aware of the weakness of (specifically) their “warming” allegations, the AGW crowd recently has morphed into the “Climate Change” crowd.

    Mitch (890cbf)

  10. I want Michael Mann in on this – he knows what’s what with numbers.

    Dmac (498ece)

  11. Great post.

    What this study is, is really a political paper pretending to be a scientific paper.

    Liberal judges and Justices are notorious for writing political talking points pretending to be legal rulings.

    SteveAR (ce1811)

  12. This is “science” to people like Willie.

    JD (07faa1)

  13. It’s the same trick the left does with environmental science. They take data (mostly real, but, as we saw in Climategate, often crudely manipulated) that shows a slight increase in temperature over a period of time. They then say, “the science proves that global warming is real.” OK, maybe. But then they tack onto it the wholly unproven allegation, “therefore man is contributing to global warming.” It may in fact be true, but it is not proven by the current science. When called on their shoddy reasoning, the environment crowd simply says, “Hey, this person is a global warming denier!” This is to de-legitimize them in the eyes of those who have no clue to logical induction.

    Now they are doing the same with the stimulus. I have no real substantive quarrel with the statement, “The stimulus saved jobs.” I know for a fact that my local school district was going to lay off teachers, but ended up getting stimulus money to “save” their jobs. The real error in logic is to assume that the jobs saved are worth the consequences of the stimulus, namely an explosion in the national debt and the potential that the stimulus money crowded out necessary reform that otherwise would have taken place. No economist can predict with certainty that the lasting effects of the stimulus won’t be a net negative for the country. So to say, “the stimulus saved jobs, therefore its effects are positive” is, like the environment crowd, welding an unproven and controversial assertion onto a generally acceptable thesis.

    JVW (4463d3)

  14. Mitch:

    Global Warming has more data points than just two years. Look at the graphs: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    We’re currently in a period of relative temperature stability. Much like 1940ish-1980ish. But the data set is much larger than just a couple of decades. It is trending upwards.

    Newtons.Bit (5c72c3)

  15. This is an outfit that includes Anthony Lake, the waspy lefty that quit over Cambodia, who somehow
    had little to say about Year Zero, fumbled the
    State assistant secretaryship under Carter, and couldn’t get confirmed as Clinton’s choice for CIA director, Gloria Duffy, a low level staffer for
    Defense Secretary Perry, a Minnesota Rino, Frenzel,
    and a partridge in a pear tree.

    tony montana (6075d0)

  16. Comment by Newtons.Bit — 12/17/2010 @ 4:26 pm

    Do I need to link to an article that shows the trend is statistically insignificant? Why bother, you just want to believe regardless of the fact that one volcanic eruption can ruin your misanthropic meme.

    anemia (e7577d)

  17. newton

    you know nasa’s data has been compromised, right?

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  18. Aaron, it doesn’t care, period. All that matters is teh Narrative™. It’s a shame really. We do need to be good stewards of our environment, but we waste our time focusing on an insignificant gas in our atmosphere.

    vote for pedro (e7577d)

  19. The stimulus claim is particularly egregious once you know that the CBO reports on ARRA’s effects are essentially meaningless.

    Karl (928df3)

  20. Then there is the bit about surveying economists. Hasn’t “unexpectedly” bad economic news become a sad punchline in media reports consulting these geniuses?

    Karl (928df3)

  21. Karl – their use of CBO numbers proves how underline and hyper-partisan they are.

    JD (07faa1)

  22. All inconvenient statistics can be blamed on poor messaging.

    vote for pedro (e7577d)

  23. Underline? My spellcheck hates me.

    JD (07faa1)

  24. Newton, the GISS … that’s hilarious. Do you have any idea of the history of that temp series?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  25. JD,

    The point here is that in both cases, the CBO’s own statements caution against relying on their reports. Unlesss you mean that WPO’s reliance on them is hyper-partisan, which may well be accurate.

    Karl (928df3)

  26. That was what I was trying to say, Karl. There was very little by the way of “facts” in the politifact rant. Those are the same kind of “facts” that Willie the racist hilljack likes to claim. And people that follow you around.

    JD (07faa1)

  27. hey world

    check me out

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  28. Steven Kull, WorldPublicOpinion.org’s Director, is a solid Democrat donor. (Search OpenSecrets.org, Kull, Maryland.)

    Jim (9fdb30)

  29. Also, from the About page,

    WorldPublicOpinion.org seeks to reveal the values and views of publics in specific nations around the world as well as global patterns of world public opinion.

    Translation: they seek to ply American public opinion by selectively and uncritically “reveal[ing]” world public opinion.

    Jim (9fdb30)

  30. i’m sure this study is going to cause a big decrease in FOX NEWS’ audience.

    tommy mc donnell (397858)

  31. World public opinion got a bunch of Soros sites and their evil minions to run around with this story. buncha anti-science hit pieces from propagandists.

    JD (07faa1)


  32. It’s really kind of a tedious thing. Every week or so, liberals come up with another allegedly scientific study declaring that..

    .

    Your mistake is in believing that Liberal Wonderland Logic is the same as the classical Greek variety.

    First off, for CGL, you start from premises, and adduce from that what you can… and, in an iterative process, adduce still more using the newly produced information.

    LWL, however, starts with a premise, and works from there to “proof” of the premise, which basically is anything that in some bizarre way supports the claim of the premise.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86)

  33. We all know that Keef Olbergasm and Rachel MadCow are the only objective news sources. Oh, and mediamatters.

    JD (306f5d)


  34. Does the “world” really have an opinion of FOX news?

    The world of narcissistic libtards does.

    C’mon — you know that’s all that matters…

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86)


  35. There is clearly a level of journalistic integrity from someone like Maddow – a Phd from Oxford and Rhodes Scholar, that you don’t get from Glenn Beck – college drop out and recovered(?) drug addict. If you can’t see that, I’m sorry.

    Funny how liberal “respect” for PhDs and such paper accolades are limited only to liberal pundits.

    Condoleeza Rice’s PhD from Stanford and her long background in business was worthless to most liberals.

    But hey, what’s a little bilateral asymmetry among pundits?

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86)

  36. “There is clearly a level of journalistic integrity from someone like Maddow – a Phd from Oxford and Rhodes Scholar”

    Heh! Degress confer integrity? Not to liars.

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  37. daleyrocks seems to be under the impression that integrity != elitism.

    I think this is called being ‘rational’.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  38. “daleyrocks seems to be under the impression that integrity != elitism.”

    Dustin – I disagree.

    Integrity is a virtue. One does not have to be a member of an elite to have integrity or other virtues.

    Merely look at the lack of integrity and values demonstrated by our unqualified, empty suit, greasy azz, socialist, lying President and the posse of mendoucheous hyenas he calls his administration who have anointed themselves our country’s elite.

    Q.E.D.

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  39. Not saying that Maddow isn’t biased, but news is news and facts are facts.

    Well, yes, and that is essentially what Condoleeza Rice schools Katie Couric in. Accuracy and clarification are essential. Never assume you are correct based on less than a preponderance of intelligence or because you believe you are *somebody* in your own eyes.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  40. Merely look at the lack of integrity and values demonstrated by our unqualified, empty suit, greasy azz, socialist, lying President and the posse of mendoucheous hyenas he calls his administration who have anointed themselves our country’s elite.

    Maybe I was being unclear, but I agree that elitism != integrity, of course. They are obviously drastically unrelated concepts, and that someone would relate them shows a lack of integrity.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  41. It’s easy to get news from Fox, if you watch their news shows.

    Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly etc. offer their insights and opinions on the events of the day and week.

    I watch Fox news because I find the other outlets condescending.
    I used to be pretty good at those IQ tests, and walked into the SAT’s dull and cold
    after a night spent smoking weed and scored high enough to do whatever I wanted… and I’d rarely graced the halls of my school. So I’m able to aggregate and assimilate information easily when I apply myself… but the networks talk down to people who look at “global warming” and laugh.

    Laughing being an intelligent response to someone who tells you their models can predict the future accurately, particularly when those same models cannot duplicate the past, and have been shown to have been useless in the near term.
    They are fortue tellers coming around looking to score a sucker and so I laugh at them.

    I think the networks condescend to me on justice, poverty, the military, abortion, religion, patriotism etc.
    So I watch a channel that doesn’t do the things as much as the others.
    I watch with my BS filter on and I read lots of other viewpoints and opinions, so I’m not steeping in some sort of Fox koolaid.

    I’m not dumb, or propagandized… I disagree.
    My slant might be towards Christianity rather than away from it. I realize that in the eyes of people like Olbermann, my religious slant negates my IQ and renders me stupid

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  42. The real coup de grâce in this study is the section entitled “A Note on the Question of What is ‘True.’”
    This is the pattern that was used for all the questions:

    - The study selected “experts” on key issues.

    - The study asked a group of respondents what the “selected experts” think about the key issues.

    - The study concluded that people who don’t know what the “selected experts” think are therefore misinformed about the key issues.

    Jayk (e7a9ea)

  43. Part 2 (I had to leave before I finished.)

    I expect an opinion guy like Olbermann to sneer at my values and he’s on a channel I never watch anyway.

    But the three major news outlets have reporters that go out and “prove” global warming, call the this a tax cut when it isn’t, they play the race card and the class warfare card weekly, they are anti-gun, and they front run President Obama’s plans for the country.
    The stories on Obamacare were more like advertisements.

    Their WH reporters (with the exception of Jake Tapper… an unlikely hero to some conservatives) don’t ask tough questions… and they accept Gibbs’ non answers like obedient sheep.
    They snarled at Bush, but seem subservient now.

    So that’s why I watch the news on Fox instead.
    That doesn’t make me dumb or ill-informed.
    If I take a survey that has questions based upon the “facts” the media believes to be absolute truths, there will some points of divergence betweem myself and the media. Those points will likely be surrounded by my belief(s) that science isn’t static and very little is settled. The more we know; the more we know that we don’t know.
    My irrational belief in a God is another problem. I believe the things we learn about how life and the universe work are already known.. I think there is a humility there that brings me peace.

    So I probably know the politically correct answer to the quiz/survey, but since I don’t care about my score like I guess liberals do, (the kids who put their hands up “pick me pick me”) I can choose the answer that best reflects my view that science, statistics on healthcare, whatever, are not infallible and I won’t be boxed into following the herd of bleating obedient sheep.

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  44. “is it your impression that most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation…”

    1) Who is an economist?
    2) Which of those people have studied “it”?
    3) What is “it”? Perhaps the question of whether the “stimulus legislation” saved or created jobs?
    3) What constitutes “studying” the question? Does a Chinese grad student in economics at a provincial university who has read two articles in the Chinese edition of The Economist count as “an economist who has studied it”?
    4) How many of the “economists who have studied it” have made an estimate of jobs saved or created?
    5) How many of those who have made an estimate have published it or been asked about it?

    Without answers to all of those questions, the original question is not even remotely answerable.

    Rich Rostrom (f7aeae)

  45. The usual Marxist suspects pushing propaganda:
    Supporters

    WPO is made possible by the generous support of:
    Rockefeller Foundation
    Rockefeller Brothers Fund
    Tides Foundation
    Ford Foundation
    German Marshall Fund of the United States
    Compton Foundation
    Carnegie Corporation
    Benton Foundation
    Ben and Jerry’s Foundation
    University of Maryland Foundation
    Circle Foundation
    JEHT Foundation
    Stanley Foundation
    Ploughshares Fund
    Calvert Foundation
    Secure World Foundation
    Oak Foundation (ACORNs come from Oaks, no?)
    United States Institute of Peace

    Joe Bidenmytime (2877f7)

  46. Anyone remember Fox recently reporting that L.A. was going to spend $2B to outfit their cops with George Jetson style jetpacks? Seriously, they did! Sourced, no less, by the Weekly World News TABLOID! In other words, like so much of what is reported on Fox, there was no truth at all to the story. Duh-huh!

    Fox so-called News is nothing but hyperbolic tabloid trash! And the people who watch it really are stupid, if they believe a word of what they hear on Fox!

    Robert L (3ca83a)

  47. Robert L:

    And CNN recently reported that Morgan Freeman was dead based on a tweet. What’s you’re point?

    Newtons.Bit (5c72c3)

  48. Aaron Worthing:

    Multiple independent sources of local weather station data corroborate NASA’s data. There would have to be a massive conspiracy amongst people who manage climate data world-wide for it to be wrong at this point.

    Newtons.Bit (5c72c3)

  49. Do you know what statistically significant means? If it isn’t statistically significant, then it’s rather useless to claim the temperature is anything but naturally occurring.

    newtard (e7577d)

  50. newtard: I assume you have a p-test or an ANOVA test calculations to show your claim that it is not statistically significant?

    Newtons.Bit (5c72c3)

  51. Newtons.bit, you really don’t know what you are talking about when you claim that “local weather station data” corroborate NASA’s data.

    Evidently you didn’t pay any attention to the fact that much of the local station data has been lost. Secondly, the revelation a couple of years ago of basic methodology problems in the GISS data showed that it does not take a massive conspiracy because no one is validating the data, other than skeptics.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  52. Please tell me what the significant temperature increase has been over your arbitrary choice of time scale. No proxy data either.

    newtard (e7577d)

  53. Oops, poorly worded last comment. Just tell me what you claim is the sigificant temperature increase and the time scale you’re using. BTW, the statistical analysis has already been done reagrding the GISS data, so I didn’t have to do my own calculations. I’ll see if I can link the article with a PDF of the GISS data.

    newtard (e7577d)

  54. What happened to my comment link? Did I do something wrong? If there’s a problem let me know, Pat. Here is the article again, Cogenital Climate Abnormalities.

    newtard (e7577d)

  55. Newtard: you are making the claim that they are not statistically significant. You must back up that claim. I am not going to do your work for you.

    Newtons.Bit (27fb9b)

  56. SPQR – typical denialist conspiracy theory.

    JD (07faa1)

  57. I just linked an article that already did the work. If you don’t want to click on the link, oh well!

    newtard (e7577d)

  58. Newtard:

    Yes, some specific periods of time don’t have statistically significant increase. Several periods of increase are similar. However when you use the whole data set, it does. Arguing against a data set that you believed is cherry picked with your own cherry picked data sets is fundamentally dishonest.

    And I still don’t see any math in that article proving that the average increase we’ve seen over the past several centuries is not statistically significant. All I see is a few cherry picked interview articles by scientists explaining a small portion of the science and a ton of graphs.

    Newtons.Bit (27fb9b)

  59. Apparently you also chose to not read any of what SPQR provided.

    JD (07faa1)

  60. What whole data set are you referring to? Did you read the entire article?

    newtard (e7577d)

  61. newton

    we have been over this before, but perhaps not with you. nasa’s data has been corrupted. If anyone else is agreeing with it, they are corrupt or corrupted, too.

    All the climate data in the world comes from only 4 sources. three of them are hopelessly corrupt.

    And i mean “corrupt” not in the moral sense, but in the sense of it being ruined. The moral corruption, however is in how many people pass off this crap as science.

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  62. Use the whole data set? Why? Since the GISS doesn’t use all the data available to it. Note that the “adjustment” just happens to bias towards warming.

    Notice also the graph in this post which compares GISS series of 3 decades ago with revised versions in 2010 which revise pre 1980 temperatures downward to emphasize warming post 1980. So we are supposed to trust GISS? Which one? Since they chose to go back and revise the data so dramatically, why should I trust them?

    Newtons.bit, you really are not up to speed on these issues. Which make your comments castigating others just hilarious.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  63. “newtard”

    We don’t allow for comments that are insulting. That nickname appears to be designed to insult another. Please use another.

    But by all means i think alot of what you said was very valid, and I would invite you to repost without the insulting nick.

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  64. Sorry Aaron, I get tired of commenters who come to conservative websites referring to anyone that doesn’t share their POV, and claim we’re anti-science knuckle-dragging hillbillies. I usually don’t start off insulting others, but we’ve been over the “global warming”, aka “climate change”, aka “climate disruption” nonsense.
    Once again, I apologize for my lack of patience. The article I linked is quite comprehensive, and uses the GISS data set.

    vote for pedro (e7577d)

  65. Why would you need to manipulate temperature data?

    JD (07faa1)

  66. Pedro: I’ve probably been posting on http://www.patterico.com much longer than you. I just do it infrequently. And I haven’t called anyone here an anti-science knuckle-dragging hillbilly. I’m just disagreeing with people. Or are you too thin-skinned to tolerate people who disagree with them that you have to automatically start insulting them?

    Newtons.Bit (27fb9b)

  67. SPQR:

    NIWA tells people why that data was manipulated. It’s comprehensive and rational. It shows a 0.9c temperature rise in the past 100 years and it is completely independent from NASA. New Zealand itself could be an anomaly, but it does corroborate the common scientific conclusion.

    Newtons.Bit (27fb9b)

  68. It either is, or is not, warming. The temperatures should stand on their own. Period. If you have to use something other than temperatures, you are guessing, or being mendoucheous.

    JD (07faa1)

  69. 0.9 degrees over the course of a century does not strike me as apocalyptic.

    JD (07faa1)

  70. Notice that NIWA’s explanation was included in the article I linked, Newtons.bit, as well as the reasons why the manipulations’ explanation was unconvincing.

    JD, that’s the issue. People like Newtons.bit keep claiming that the “station data” confirms the warming claim, but we keep learning that the station data is not raw data, but manipulated data.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  71. I wonder if Raymond James can manipulate our investments in the same way, SPQR. Or if I could manipulate by checking account upward.

    JD (07faa1)

  72. Newton, I apologize for changing my moniker to newtard. It was childish. I should not have lumped you in with others that comment here.
    Now, are you attributing the warming trend of 0.9C in 100 years to an increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human activity.

    vote for pedro (e7577d)

  73. JD: Alright. What do you do combine these two different sets of measurements into a composite data set:

    Data-set 1: Historical record that was taken once a day at noon. Temperature that is physically measured by a mercury thermometer.

    Data-set 2: Modern dataset that records temperature every 15 minutes with an electronic thermocouple.

    Data-set 3: Same as #2, but #2 was damaged repeatedly by vandals and was moved ten years ago to a site several miles away.

    The article I linked to explains this. It also shows graphs with temperature differences from two different sites and exactly what the offset temperature is.

    Newtons.Bit (27fb9b)

  74. That might make sense, if the manipulated figures did not skew towards a conclusion that has been assumed by their political advocates, because they are not committing acts of science.

    JD (07faa1)

  75. Pedro: Apology accepted, think nothing of it.

    SPQR: the article you linked doesn’t actually show that the adjustments made are incorrect. It attacks them without any real conclusive math showing that they’re wrong. One of the big claims is that there was not overlapping data proving the temperature offsets when a monitoring station was moved. That’s only true for some of the moves. It’s not for all of them. The NIWA article I linked shows the temperatures at sites that have been moved and shows that the offset used is correct.

    Newtons.Bit (27fb9b)

  76. So, unless the new temps trend with the actual temps, it is complete unadulterated BS.

    JD (07faa1)

  77. JD: the ones that they have actual data for, it does. However in some cases they were unable to the station running at the same time at two different locations. This is where they’ve used math. The math is detailed and based on good principles. If their offset numbers were significantly flawed, there would be easily visible jumps in the long-term graph. But there’s not.

    The information that NIWA posted, particularly those showing graphs of the original station vs. where it was moved to overlapping, is what finally forced me to accept global warming is happening. I don’t agree with the mass hysteria about it, as the level of warming, the cause for concern, is not the end of the world. I’m reminded of the line in Al Gore’s movie: An Inconvenient Truth, where he said that the world can avert certain disaster if we band together and stop it within ten years. Well, it’s been about ten-years and the cataclysm hasn’t struck yet. I would hope that in fifty years, when the temperature rise is causing large amounts of problems, energy (possibly fusion) will be cheap enough that we can just pull CO2 out of the atmosphere.

    Newtons.Bit (27fb9b)

  78. 0.9 degrees over a course of a century is warming. Cataclysmic warming. Evil. Definitely man caused. Why do you assume another 0.45 degrees over the next 50 years would be any worse? The whole thing stinks. The “scientists” piss on our legs, swear it is raining.

    JD (07faa1)

  79. . I would hope that in fifty years, when the temperature rise is causing large amounts of problems,

    Objection. Flag on the play. No basis for the conclusion, or even the underlying assumption.

    JD (07faa1)

  80. If it actually turns out that global warming evidence already existed, and these fools still fabricated evidence, and because of that people who are reasonable doubt the problem is so severe, then whose fault is that?

    If, in 50 years, Al Gore’s doomsday BS turns out to be true, we should blame Al Gore, Mann, NASA, and many others, who shilled hard and dishonestly.

    It’s very reasonable to assume they lied about the data because the data proved them wrong. It’s very reasonable to kick up the burden of proof a notch or two.

    If it turns out that we could have thwarted some kind of horrible disaster, always a few decades in the future, it’s the left’s fault for lying so much, and agitating for political power, against normal scientific skepticism and research.

    Of course, in 50 years, we will actually realize the claims today are as wrong as the claims in the 1970s were, and the same type of bastards will be lying about some other reason to give the left tons of political power.

    And on and on we will probably go.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  81. JD: Rising temperature will eventually melt enough of the ice caps and glaciers to cause a rise in sea levels. The estimate I saw was somewhere between half a meter and two meters, IIRC. This is a big problem for places like New York City or Galveston. It is cataclysmic to some countries such as Belgium or the Netherlands or any island nation who will lose large portions of their landmass.

    I understand that most people posting here have a hard time buying that the warming is even happening. Some people like Dustin or Pedro are saying that it’s a massive conspiracy between climate scientists to manipulate the data. Yet they cannot provide anything showing that this claim is true.

    You’re arguing a position that correlation doesn’t equate causation. That’s fine. However CO2 is historically linked to temperature. Experiments easily show that an increase in CO2 will increase temperature. Hell, even the Mythbusters did an episode of it.

    Newtons.Bit (5c72c3)

  82. Co2 is a lagging indicator with temps, no? All of. What you described is going to happen if the temp increases less than half of a degree over 50 years? Forgive me while I laugh. The modeling your side has used cannot even predict known data sets retroactively, and you think I am going to buy such nonsense?

    JD (07faa1)

  83. Newton, you’re misrepresenting what I wrote. I said it was statistically insignificant, as did the article I linked to. I never accused anyone of a conspiracy. BTW, New Zealand is a small spot on the earth, and a 0.9C warming trend in one region of the planet does not constitute global warming, nor does it indicate that the trend is due to human activity.
    I’ll have to find a couple of the articles that I’ve bookmarked which contradict your claim that CO2 is historically linked to temperature prior to responding that statement. Unfortunately, I have two doctor’s appointments this week that I need to prepare paperwork for, so I don’t know if I’ll be able to comment in a timely fashion.

    vote for pedro (e7577d)

  84. I can show that the guys who are the gurus of the climate movement are idiots:

    Year 2010: Coldest Christmas on record in England w/ added bonus of record snowfalls.

    Year 2000:

    According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

    David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.

    This is why I a skeptical. These guys have a bunch of data that they interpret for us.
    They have their heads up their arses on the near term interpretations, but we are supposed to trust them 20-100 years out?

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  85. Great example, SteveG.

    I think this is called falsification.

    If a warming alarmist can’t accept this as proof Dr Viner’s theory is incorrect, then they are unreasonable.

    That’s not to say we shouldn’t be good stewards of our environment and resources, but the hysteria is consistently wrong.

    The climate will always be in a state of change, and we shouldn’t give statists tremendous power on that basis.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  86. However CO2 is historically linked to temperature.

    Really, Newtons.bit, you want to leave that comment uncorrected? Because even the AGW crowd over at RealClimate admits that CO2 concentrations and temperature have shown CO2 concentrations lagging temperature in the ice core record.

    SPQR (26be8b)


  87. We recommend Trident for our patients who chew gum.

    Which is really odd since most of these people couldn’t fart and chew gum at the same time.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86)


  88. Heh! Degress confer integrity?

    I’m sure this is clear from the Bar Association and all those honest lawyers with JDs….

    Right..?

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86)


  89. Multiple independent sources of local weather station data corroborate NASA’s data.

    No they don’t. Cite your source for this claim. They could not possibly, since these “independent local sources” provide raw data, and NASA only publishes carefully massaged numbers. They, and the other two major sources for such “data” constantly reject requests for both the raw data, the modified, adjusted data connected to it, and the algorithms used to transform one into the other.

    I believe the word you should be seeking now is: DUH.


    There would have to be a massive conspiracy amongst people who manage climate data world-wide for it to be wrong at this point.

    … and somehow, despite your clearly deep knowledge of the basis in support of AGW, you’ve managed to NOT become aware of “ClimateGate”?

    You know, the revelation of a lot of e-mails in which prominent climate data people are discussing how they can manipulate the data, discredit via non-factual means their detractors, and use assorted other… ummm… conspiratorial means to suppress the opposing point of view?

    THAT massive conspiracy…?

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86)


  90. 0.9 degrees over the course of a century does not strike me as apocalyptic.

    More critically, even IF we grant it as accurate, correlation is not causation. Ample evidence exists that weather cycles go up and down all the time. Such an upward shift may well be entirely within the bounds of natural variance.

    In actual fact, *IF* AGW theory were accurate, then
    a) There is a specific layer of the atmosphere which should be warming. It is not.
    b) The oceans are giant heat sinks able to absorb truly phenomenal amounts of heat energy. The oceans should be showing some warming. The best data we currently have, from the relatively new bouys distributed in about 2003, is that there is no sign at all of such warming in the oceans.

    In short, there’s neither evidence to support warming as a whole NOR the argument that it is attributable to man. To say nothing of the notion that adapting to the effects of warming would not be orders of magnitude cheaper than attempting to counteract it.

    In short, AGW is this generation’s “Population Bomb”.

    Soylent Heat is PEEEEEPLUULLLLLLLL!!!!

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86)

  91. He cannot quit us.

    JD (b98cae)

  92. They used government data?
      
    You mean those fake congressional districts and zip codes that were posted on .gov to document the success of the stimulus?

    Michael Brand (8c5528)

  93. Yep, Michael. That website was the only evidence that Joe Biden was actually watching the stimulus funds like Obama said he was.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  94. Speaking of old Joe, remember when he asked for the phone number for his website

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/255682/joe-biden-it-again-bing-west

    narciso (6075d0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3594 secs.