Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[ron johnson]

Ron wrote, "Quote #1 is in reference to a GISS graph which shows exactly what I said." It's your GISS graph, ron. If you claim it shows "shows exactly what I said" then let's see it?

I don't know what GISS graph you are referencing since you never provide any references to the posts you quote of me. If you say its fake, then its up to you to prove it.

This is totally pointless anyway since you started out labeling me as denying there has been any warming - which I took issue with - and now you move the goalposts to say well actually you said there was .06' warming pre 1945 and .05' warming post 1945. So what? That is what the GISS graph showed.

When I look at the up to date GISS graph here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/#

It shows .07' warming from 1909-1944 and .08' from 1944-2016. Are you trying to label me as a denier of warming because an out of date graph made me off by a couple tenths of a degree? Is that the point you are trying to make? Pathetic.

Just to be clear, Ron says:

1) There was more warming in the first half of the twentieth century then there was from the second half of the twentieth century until today

I believe the point I was trying to make was that the warming pre 1945 is comparable to the warming post 1945, but since you never reference the quotes you pull from me, I can't go back and see the discussion. Either way, the best you can say is I was off by 1 tenth of a degree.

2) Australia's land temperature has had no warming since the late 1800's

Again, talking about average maximum temperatures here. Data from BOM, all locations with pre 1890 data:

3) And three, per the ron-heller charts ron posted numerous times the US has actually been cooling for 80 to 90 years

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so let's see the evidence, not just the unsourced charts. Can you do that ron?

Yes, that is true for average maximum summer temperatures, and Heller's graphs are sourced - the data comes from the USHCN: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-acces...-network-ushcn

A favorite source of yours, the NCA, confirms as much:

[ron johnson]

I see RJ has learned from Captain Cheeto that when caught lying the way to win the day is to immediately accuse everyone else of lying. TBF, it seems to work on his base, but I don't think it's going to work here.

You got an example of me getting caught lying or are you just following MV's playbook?

For you to be right, every signatory to the Paris Agreement would have to have been taken in by junk science and the baseless claims of online fraudsters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...eement#Parties

Not to hurt your feelings by criticizing your insightful analyses, but I'm pretty sure they looked into this a little bit, possibly tapping into people who had experience beyond Internet trolling, before signing the agreement.

Is it any surprise so many countries signed on? Take a look at how little 3rd world countries are required to reduce their emissions compared to the US. Even if a country could care less about this (eg: China, Russia) it still makes sense to sign on because the US foots the bill.

"46 Statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC"
https://climatism.blog/2020/03/07/46...inst-the-ipcc/

[iceman]

When the people with real money start making changes it's time to pay attention.

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/climate...y-recalculate/

[k2skier112]

You got an example of me getting caught lying or are you just following MV's playbook?



Is it any surprise so many countries signed on? Take a look at how little 3rd world countries are required to reduce their emissions compared to the US. Even if a country could care less about this (eg: China, Russia) it still makes sense to sign on because the US foots the bill.

"46 Statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC"
https://climatism.blog/2020/03/07/46...inst-the-ipcc/

shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

[MultiVerse]

There's so many examples of ron's deception in the post above that it's hard to count them all.

For example, ron says the GISS data "shows .07' warming from 1909-1944 and .08' from 1944-2016" but in reality from 1944-2016 global mean temps increased .91°C (1.6°F):




Also, WRT to Australia, here's what ron wrote repeatedly in this thread:

Australia's land temperature has had no warming since the late 1800's

There was no mention of the fact his source heller was referring to maximum temperatures. That the ron-heller "Data from BOM, all locations" chart is actually only 25 locations, excluding vast swaths of the Australian continent. That the chart also excludes weather stations that don’t go back to a specific date, excluding most weather stations in the those 25 locations. And that heller's claims are contradicted by Australia's BOM (Bureau of Meteorology).


And finally, according to NOAA high summer temperatures have been increasing, just like they have for winter, spring, and autumn. If ron is going try and pass off NOAA and not heller as his source then he should use their data:

[ron johnson]

There's so many examples of ron's deception in the post above that it's hard to count them all.

For example, ron says the GISS data "shows .07' warming from 1909-1944 and .08' from 1944-2016" but in reality from 1944-2016 global mean temps increased .91°C (1.6°F):

Oops, I got my decimal points wrong. Instead of .07' and .08' its .7' warming pre 1944 and .8' warming post 1944. Not sure where you are getting .91' from .99'(2016)-.21'(1944)=.78'C

Also, WRT to Australia, here's what ron wrote repeatedly in this thread:

There was no mention of the fact his source heller was referring to maximum temperatures.

Again, no context given to my quote, and I know I later clarified that I was talking about maximum temperatures.

That the ron-heller "Data from BOM, all locations" chart is actually only 25 locations, excluding vast swaths of the Australian continent. That the chart also excludes weather stations that don’t go back to a specific date, excluding most weather stations in the those 25 locations.

This is a really dumb argument. Having 25 active stations since 1876 with good coverage of Australia is actually pretty amazing data for the time period. The point IS that it excludes other stations - this way we are looking at a level playing field - and that playing field shows no increase in maximum temperatures.

And that heller's claims are contradicted by Australia's BOM (Bureau of Meteorology).

That is because the BOM hides the pre 1910 data. There also love to manipulate the data like NOAA:
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/02/aco...hottest-place/
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/10/the...very-hot-days/
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/10/the...-days-in-1952/

And finally, according to NOAA high summer temperatures have been increasing, just like they have for winter, spring, and autumn. If ron is going try and pass off NOAA and not heller as his source then he should use their data:

I can't find where you got those graphs from, but I'm guessing those are the manipulated data vs. Heller's raw data.

[MultiVerse]

lol @ ron so the crux of the matter is it's all a grand conspiracy perpetrated by the world's meteorological organizations that ron and tony heller have uncovered.


Also, lol @ ron and his 25 stations and only those with a specific start date. The ron-heller Australia scam is transparently obvious:

1 - Choose the start date
2 - Cut out key data like any warming data from other sites
3 - Ignore earlier or later warming data from other sites at those locations
4 - Use a naive average
5 - Ignore the fact that many weather stations over a century were relocated
6 - Ignore any instrument calibrations
7 - Making it appear as if it was just as warm in the past (for 25 stations)

The end result is a "all locations" fraudulent chart using tortured data ron posted repeatedly without clarification, that the rest of us clarified, after which ron finally admitted only after being called out.


So which is it ron: is heller right and there's no warming & no greenhouse effect? And if he's wrong then why do you keep defending him and posting his charts while trying to maintain you never said there's "no warming" and "no greenhouse effect."

Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

[rideit]

It all makes me wonder what other bullshit Ron vociferously believes.

[dan_pdx]

Is it any surprise so many countries signed on? Take a look at how little 3rd world countries are required to reduce their emissions compared to the US. Even if a country could care less about this (eg: China, Russia) it still makes sense to sign on because the US foots the bill.

Now Ronald, I know it hurts your feelings when we call you out on your BS, but China is taking responsibility for more emissions than the US, which makes you look like you're being misleading. (shock horror!)

[ron johnson]

lol @ ron so the crux of the matter is it's all a grand conspiracy perpetrated by the world's meteorological organizations that ron and tony heller have uncovered.

The crux of what matter? This whole stupid diatribe stems from you labeling me as a 'denier of warming.' When I call you out on that claim you nitpick old posts about tenths of a degree difference between warming pre and post 1944, average maximum temperatures in Australia and summer max temperatures in the US. Some 'denier of warming' I am.

Also, lol @ ron and his 25 stations and only those with a specific start date. The ron-heller Australia scam is transparently obvious:

1 - Choose the start date

By choosing the start date you mean using the oldest possible start date?

2 - Cut out key data like any warming data from other sites

Level playing field is kind of important. Imagine if the opposite was happening - if newer stations in Australia showed a cooling trend, but the old stations didn't - of course you are going to take issue with excluding the old data.

3 - Ignore earlier or later warming data from other sites at those locations

Ignore what earlier warming data? What later warming data from those locations?

4 - Use a naive average

Huh? Is it not the same average as you presented in your GISS seasonal data?

5 - Ignore the fact that many weather stations over a century were relocated

Relocations are included.

6 - Ignore any instrument calibrations

I could give you numerous links to why the adjustments don't add up, but I know they will fall on deaf ears so what's the point?

7 - Making it appear as if it was just as warm in the past (for 25 stations)

It was.

The end result is a "all locations" fraudulent chart using tortured data ron posted repeatedly without clarification, that the rest of us clarified, after which ron finally admitted only after being called out.

The end result is not a fraudulent chart, the data isn't tortured, and your claim that I posted it repeatedly without clarification is false. Look at the title on the graph - what clarification do you need?

So which is it ron: is heller right and there's no warming & no greenhouse effect? And if he's wrong then why do you keep defending him and posting his charts while trying to maintain you never said there's "no warming" and "no greenhouse effect."

Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

He is right that there hasn't been an increase in maximum temperatures in Australia and he is right that the US had warmer summer maximum temperatures.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the greenhouse effect. Heller doesn't deny the greenhouse effect AFAIK, and where have I ever said there is no greenhouse effect? Saying that pressure matters is not denial of the greenhouse effect.

Oh, and I'm STILL waiting....

If its not just one blog post about Heller, where are the others? How about instead of you now claiming that Heller's "so called evidence was laughable", you go back and present what is laughable about it.

Is there anything more detestable than making baseless claims against someone, and doubling down on those claims even though you have no evidence to support them?

[ron johnson]

Now Ronald, I know it hurts your feelings when we call you out on your BS, but China is taking responsibility for more emissions than the US, which makes you look like you're being misleading. (shock horror!)

In what way is China taking responsibility for more emissions?

[Bunion 2020]

[dan_pdx]

In what way is China taking responsibility for more emissions?

It gets tiresome when you constantly ask for sources to be provided and then re-provided, but I understand there's a lot going on and it's hard for you to track it all, and since like us you're committed to examining all the evidence and understanding where truth lies, I'll respost this for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...eement#Parties

China acknowledged their share of greenhouse gas emissions as 20% vs 18% for the US.

And they're doing shit about it: https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcsta...Submission.pdf

Juicy excerpts:
By 2014 the following has been achieved:
• Carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP is 33.8% lower than the 2005 level;
• The share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption is 11.2%;
• The forested area and forest stock volume are increased respectively by 21.6
million hectares and 2.188 billion cubic meters compared to the 2005 levels;
• The installed capacity of hydro power is 300 gigawatts (2.57 times of that for
2005);
• The installed capacity of on-grid wind power is 95.81 gigawatts (90 times of
that for 2005);
4
• The installed capacity of solar power is 28.05 gigawatts (400 times of that for
2005); and
• The installed capacity of nuclear power is 19.88 gigawatts (2.9 times of that
for 2005).

And:
Based on its national circumstances, development stage, sustainable development
strategy and international responsibility, China has nationally determined its
actions by 2030 as follows:
• To achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making
best efforts to peak early;
• To lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% from the
2005 level;
• To increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to
around 20%; and
• To increase the forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion cubic meters on the
2005 level.


So you were telling us how this is a cynical con by China, right?

[dan_pdx]

Also Ronald, posting here since this oddly enough this seems to be the only thread you visit (so weird!), how'd that J Jones Orca board treat you this season? Looking forward to your ride review!

[ex-powderbroker]

Also Ronald, posting here since this oddly enough this seems to be the only thread you visit (so weird!), how'd that J Jones Orca board treat you this season? Looking forward to your ride review!

So this guys whole thing is to sit in hear and spout climate nonsense?

RJ - give it your best shot, how is climate change not real. Glaciers growing somewhere? Australia is cooler? Man can't affect the climate? The temperature always fluctuates?

2020 shaping up to be the hottest on record, knocking off 2019, which knocked off 2018, etc!

[rideit]

But there was a cold day somewhere in February, soooo...

[ron johnson]

So you were telling us how this is a cynical con by China, right?

That's the jist of it. You think that China signing the Paris Accord was some big step, but in reality it was just a PR stunt.

“What China is pledging to do here is not a lot different from what China’s policies are on a track to deliver”
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/w...-in-place.html

And now China is back to building more coal plants:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...8a3_story.html

China doesn't care about CO2 emissions.

[ron johnson]

Also Ronald, posting here since this oddly enough this seems to be the only thread you visit (so weird!), how'd that J Jones Orca board treat you this season? Looking forward to your ride review!

I visit lots of threads, but I only made the account so I could post in this thread so it shouldn't be a surprise that I don't post much elsewhere.

Even a bot like me knows that Jones doesn't make the Orca. It's an okay board, but I'm not a big fan of fishy shapes, they are too weak/noodley. That said I like it better than other fishy shapes I've rode.

[ron johnson]

So this guys whole thing is to sit in hear and spout climate nonsense?

RJ - give it your best shot, how is climate change not real. Glaciers growing somewhere? Australia is cooler? Man can't affect the climate? The temperature always fluctuates?

2020 shaping up to be the hottest on record, knocking off 2019, which knocked off 2018, etc!

Read the thread if you want my perspective.

[ex-powderbroker]

Read the thread if you want my perspective.

Come on, I really want to see your side. Gimme the pitch!

[rideit]

Can you sum it up again in one, tight, concise sentence?

[MultiVerse]

Yep, so much bullshit

[MultiVerse]

It all makes me wonder what other bullshit Ron vociferously believes.

Is there any doubt especially after ron's fisking salad on the previous page that he's as mad as a bag full of cats?


Ron's response(s) contain yet another endless stream of bullshit. Why bother going through it when ron can't even get his initial argument right:

By choosing the start date you mean using the oldest possible start date?

The earliest start date for records in Australia dates back to the 1840s. There are many more stations and earlier or later start dates for ron's heller to choose from but then his scam falls apart.


Australia has hundreds of temperature recording sites but ron's heller chose just 25. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of statistics, or just intuitively, knows by limiting the datatset and choosing small spatial scales you can pick stations to show two opposite different conclusions. All heller has to do is use a simple algorithm to go through the station data to cherry pick examples that support his false narrative.

In reality, statistical analysis like "p-value" etc. can evaluate the fidelity of the data but when has that mattered to conspiracy theorists like ron? This is what the high temperature trend for Australia actually looks like:

[k2skier112]

Read the thread if you want my perspective.

shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

[MultiVerse]

Come on, I really want to see your side. Gimme the pitch!

Deniers like ron can't win on the science so they attempt to confound by manufacturing controversy.

You can just pick a number. It all depends on where ron's at in his progression:

1) The planet isn’t warming, it's a conspiracy, but 2) Even if it is warming, it’s caused by the solar maximum, but 3) Even if it is warming and caused by people, the effects are unimportant, but 4) Even if it is warming, caused by people, and serious, the effects are positive, but 5) Even if it is warming, caused by people, serious, and bad, the effects are impossible to stop, but 6) Even if it is warming, caused by people, serious, bad, and possible to mitigate, it’s too costly for the world to manage, but 7) Even if it is warming, caused by people, serious, bad, alleviable, and economically feasible, other countries won’t cooperate, and 8) Even if it is warming, caused by humans, serious, bad, fixable, economically feasible, and possible to coordinate, domestic politics means it’s still impossible to solve.*

*Besides 9) what about Greta and scaring children, Ocasio eats babies, plastic straws... which by rule is also 1.5), 2.5), 3.5), 4.5), 5.5), 6.5), 7.5), 8.5), 9.5)