I don’t see how Tony Heller is cheating here. This is how you make your point in a reasonable, accepted way. You search and find the statistic that suits your need. Not unbiased, but fair. In his case, it’s pretty easy because the real data show clearly that the effects of man-made global warming, if there are any, are minimal. The huge effects claimed by the ‘regular climate scientists’ however, are so outrageous that they can only be reached by clear and simple fraud. Remember the hockey stick? Indeed, many more like the rubbing out the Medieval warm period you show, Al Gore showing that CO2 precedes temperature (he knew it is the other way round - but hey, he’s a politician) or more recently the mid 20th century warm period which has been rubbed out by selective ‘homogenization’ (pick the instrument with the largest difference in the direction you want and declare it the representative one) conduct unworthy of any scientist. Still, it’s comply or be fired and blacklisted.
I blame the transition from truth-driven science (say, upto 1970/1980) to funding-driven science. I went to college during the eighties. In those years in Utrecht, equal amounts of real scientists were fired as managers were hired. Those funding streams have corrupted science to the point we are now.
I didn’t say he was cheating. I will say his honesty is highly questionable. Mr. Heller is using the number of days, on a certain day in the year, with temperatures over certain degrees, showing how that the number of those days over those certain degrees have been declining overall. In doing so, he is purposely giving the impression that average temperatures, on that particular day of the year, have been cooling. In reality, what he is showing is almost, but not quite, completely meaningless as to whether average temperatures are going up, staying the same, or going down. He is using a very narrow band of data to paint broad strokes. This really is another form of propaganda.
I will say his honesty is not questionable at all. How can you say that? He is purposely trying to find statistics that suit his needs. That is different from changing data! I can see no instance of any fraud in Tony Heller’s work.
I find it shocking that you put Tony Heller’s work in the same league as that of people like Al Gore and Michael Mann. His task is to show that the climate ‘science’ we get to see in the media is not based on facts. His work is based on facts.
First of all, I appreciate Mr. Heller’s website https://realclimatescience.com/ for, as you say, he is exposing the media for the propaganda machine it is. I love it when he uses newspaper clippings from the late 19th century to the mid 20th to show a historical perspective on the media and climate. I have to laugh when there is published “record heat” and he shows records from newspaper articles, and other credible sources, from the past of how it was hotter then.
Here’s the deal. When he makes graphs like the ones I posted, he is doing something like telling one’s parent the absolute truth, but not the whole truth, to give the impression of what may not be true. Perhaps that is using statistics to suit his needs, but it is not giving an accurate view of the entire picture, is it? Climate alarmists are using the same tactics (see Micheal Manns graph posted above) I don’t find that to be honest. Actually, I hope that his real motive is to demonstrate how data can be used to say anything that is desired, which is readily apparent among climate alarmist. If he is doing that, I wish he would make that clear.
Is Mr. Heller dishonest and disingenuous as in the league of the major climate alarmist spokespeople who make things up in whole cloth? I seriously doubt it. I wish he would just stick to exposing the dishonesty of the global warming movement. But, in reading his posts, I have to remember, he too has an agenda.
Sorry, disagree. Tony Heller exposes errors in the scientific process. It is irrelevant whether this is done in a biased way. In good science one counter-example = falsification. He provides a myriad of falsifications. He is doing his job. The Michael Mann’s are not. That’s a huge difference.
Now I’m lost. You need to learn one thing. I am thick!!! I do not have a higher education in science. So, please explain. You might need to use monosyllabic words.
OK. In science, a theory is only a theory if it can be tested. An untestable theory simply has no value. The better the theory, the more precise the predictions are. In good science, everyone cooperates to give the theory a hard time. If the theory’s predictions hold up under tough scrutiny, then its quality is said to be high. But one counter-example to any theory makes the theory invalid. We then say that the theory has been falsified.
A good theory holds up on all known facts. A bad theory makes vague predictions and can therefore hardly be disproven, i.e. falsified. This property of making your theories vulnerable to falsification is a hallmark of good science. Because you only need one falsification for a theory to be refuted. Which may be sad for its parents, but good for the truth, which is what science is all about.
@Bert I am still confused (of which I’ll blame it all on you. I did say hand puppets!!)
Putting aside the current subject and just looking at the use of data, Micheal Mann not including the Medieval Warm period in his data chart is not a bad thing?
Does this technique/concept have a name? Any suggestions for me researching this? It is totally new for me as I am a simple straightforward guy. I have a feeling I’m going to be doing some reading this weekend.
No, it may be suggestive, but you can make a choice of your stats. But when you set the rules of the stats, then you have to live by what this choice produces. Mr Mann just rubbed out data he didn’t like and replaced it with non-existent data. Very different.
And again: Mr Mann is supposed to deliver science, Mr Heller only has to blow holes in theories. Those are the rules of the game called science.
I certainly could see Mr. Heller’s charts being very useful when it is made part of a whole picture (sorry for the nomenclature, I don’t know what else to call it).
He says that he made some algorithms in order to use the data from NOAA’s website. I downloaded just data from just one station from the time of it’s start. I had no idea what to do with it. Tried putting it in a spreadsheet, but was lost from there. The charts I tried to make were pathetic! I was hoping to use the data to see what trends were in average daily temperatures.
That’s what scammers count on. That nobody can call their bluff, because it is damn hard to do. But Tony Heller has tremendous experience with this sort of thing, so he simply does his thing and exposes the bad science and fraud, so we can all see what they do, and how they do it.
Do you know of any software that could make use of such data? Or point me to something that could help? I wish Mr. Heller would have made his open. It would be quite useful.
I’ve done lots and lots of this type of work using C++ and Python but also spreadsheets, reformatting tools like awk and plain editor work. There are specialized tools like the ‘R’ language. Not sure what Tony Heller is using, he may say that in one of his videos.
But beware: it may be a lot easier to do this yourself nowadays than 10 years ago, you still need to know what you’re doing, and you need a pretty deep understanding of the fundamentals of (multi-variate) statistics. Learn the basics. From what I can see (and I do have years of experience), Tony Heller knows what he’s doing. And the silence on the ‘other side’ is a probable sign that he’s totally right.
@Bert not sure what your problem is. Care to elaborate and respond to whatever’s winding you up in the article rather than just laying into me personally? Thanks.
@neuro what you posted is in no way an argument for or against the climate-change-is-a-catastrophe position. The article seeks to discredit people who honestly believe that nature and our societies are the victims of the economically driven climate scare. I do think the motives of most climate concerned people are good, they just have no idea they are being used by Big Money for more profit - and these shameless criminals do not care about our environment one bit.
)