5 ms·

"we've seen many of the predictions come true... including the mass decline of insects worldwide" Interesting you should mention that. No doubt you're referrin

"we've seen many of the predictions come true... including the mass decline of insects worldwide" Interesting you should mention that. No doubt you're referring to the recent study [1], heavily pushed by the likes of The Guardian [2], the Washington Post and the BBC, warning of the "collapse of nature" due to declining insect population. Did you also know that this study turned out to be flawed to the point of uselessness? So flawed in fact that the Global Warming Policy Foundation sent a complaint to its publishers and is calling for its withdrawal? [3] I think you unwittingly just proved aveross' point vis-à-vis 'climate alarmism'... [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397#F1 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397#F1 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeti... [3] https://www.thegwpf.org/hyper-alarming-study-was-hype/ https://www.thegwpf.org/hyper-alarming-study-was-hype/

fzeroracer 8y ago
You realize that the Global Warming Policy Foundation is a climate change skeptic organization, correct? They're entirely founded upon climate change denial. So what exactly kind of bullshit were you trying to pull by implying that they were an authority on climate change? Either you were ignorant of the GWPF or you were deliberately misconstruing them in attempt to gaslight.
- SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
  Do you have anything to say about the actual substance of the complaint? Are you denying that the paper is based on flawed data? Have you even read the complaint? You can attack the organization all you like, but you havent actually shown that the complaint is unjustified.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    So it's gaslighting, then? Why in the hell should I believe reporting from an organization whose entire stated purpose is to spread FUD and has knowingly in the past lied about the various points it's attempted to raise? If the paper is based off of flawed data, then I assume you can find an actual credible source willing to address this. If you can give me a credible source by all means I would be happy to admit I'm wrong. What you've given me is trash disguised as something credible. Especially since in your original post you implied that they were a climate change authority. There's a lot of bullshit that I try to ignore, but I expect better than that.
    - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
      You seem very angry about this. Here's what we know: The paper compares temperature data primarily from a single weather station 'El Verde', starting in 1978. [1] The operators of the weather station say themselves that the data is unreliable, that papers have already drawn erroneous conclusions based on it, and that it shouldn't be used for calculating long term trends. [2] Here's a few quotes from [2], but please read the whole thing. "Subsequent manipulations make the EVFS record less valuable for interpreting long term trends." "After September 1992, recorded maximum temperatures increased substantially at this station, certainly as a result of the instrumentation changes that took place in that month." "correction ceased to be applied to these maximum temperature data in 1997, and as a result, the EVFS maximum temperature record (LUQ data set 16) showed an abrupt increase in maximum temperature in 1997." "This partially corrected data set is the one we made accessible to people on our web site and through ClimDB until Feb 2014. At least one paper has reached erroneous conclusions about long term trends based on these data (Huey et al. 2009)." "The differences in instrumentation have introduced differences in the data between these two periods, and treating them as a single data set misrepresents the data." Knowing this, I think it's fair to say that any data prior to 1997 is invalid. Now take the graph in [1] and disregard 1997 backwards, and it paints an entirely different picture doesn't it? [1] https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/image_thumb-85.png?w=765&h=774 https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/... [2] http://luq.lternet.edu/data/luqmetadata16 http://luq.lternet.edu/data/luqmetadata16
      - fzeroracer 8y ago
        I have no intention of debating with someone who has already misrepresented the debate once, especially someone that refuses to link or share a credible resource. As far as I have searched, every single link 'debunking' this study is coming from sites that deliberately peddle fake information such as Breitbart. I have debated and dealt with far too many climate skeptics that deliberately point out one small part of a study and misconstrue it in attempt to debunk the entire thing.
        SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Do you have any credible source for 3? GWPF is a firmly denialist think tank set up by Nigel Lawson, one of the most strident deniers who has often and easily been caught lying on many readily checked points. GWPF has been repeatedly criticised for its misinformation, its opaque funding and lied about sources, and breached Charity Commission rules on impartiality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundati...
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Hang on just a bloody minute. The recent study "heavily pushed by the likes of the Guardian" (sic) refers to an entirely different meta study[1] of 73 global reports. No mention of or link to the older study you cite. The meta study concludes intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines, particularly the heavy use of pesticides. Urbanisation and climate change are also significant factors. So the failure or otherwise of the temperature record in a single location is mostly irrelevant to their findings. If it is even included in the analysis at all. What a delightful illustration for a thread on disinformation and fake news. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320718313636 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632071...
- SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
  If you think I'm denying climate change, you've misunderstood my point. My point is that disinformation campaigns are not solely an endeavour of nefarious actors with an agenda. They are also undertaken by those with noble intentions. Climate alarmists are a good example of that. Should we give disinformation campaigns a free pass if they're done with good intentions?
- SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
  "No mention of or link to the older study you cite." It's right there in the 4th paragraph.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Which is link to a previous article, so adds a level of indirection. If you'd cited that in the first place, fine. Even if the complaint letter turns out to be upheld (unlikely given the history of the authors, but you never know), it doesn't affect, or even question, the conclusion of the meta study in the Guardian piece you did link to. The one that concludes climate is only a significant secondary factor. Until said letter is upheld as finding a valid flaw in the study, it's worthless. That's how science progresses. Individual studies are found accurate or wanting, further research confirms, disputes or adds precision. A few steps from the hyperbole of "flawed to the point of uselessness", as though it is already proven.

fzeroracer 8y ago

You realize that the Global Warming Policy Foundation is a climate change skeptic organization, correct? They're entirely founded upon climate change denial. So what exactly kind of bullshit were you trying to pull by implying that they were an authority on climate change? Either you were ignorant of the GWPF or you were deliberately misconstruing them in attempt to gaslight.

SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
Do you have anything to say about the actual substance of the complaint? Are you denying that the paper is based on flawed data? Have you even read the complaint? You can attack the organization all you like, but you havent actually shown that the complaint is unjustified.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  So it's gaslighting, then? Why in the hell should I believe reporting from an organization whose entire stated purpose is to spread FUD and has knowingly in the past lied about the various points it's attempted to raise? If the paper is based off of flawed data, then I assume you can find an actual credible source willing to address this. If you can give me a credible source by all means I would be happy to admit I'm wrong. What you've given me is trash disguised as something credible. Especially since in your original post you implied that they were a climate change authority. There's a lot of bullshit that I try to ignore, but I expect better than that.
  - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
    You seem very angry about this. Here's what we know: The paper compares temperature data primarily from a single weather station 'El Verde', starting in 1978. [1] The operators of the weather station say themselves that the data is unreliable, that papers have already drawn erroneous conclusions based on it, and that it shouldn't be used for calculating long term trends. [2] Here's a few quotes from [2], but please read the whole thing. "Subsequent manipulations make the EVFS record less valuable for interpreting long term trends." "After September 1992, recorded maximum temperatures increased substantially at this station, certainly as a result of the instrumentation changes that took place in that month." "correction ceased to be applied to these maximum temperature data in 1997, and as a result, the EVFS maximum temperature record (LUQ data set 16) showed an abrupt increase in maximum temperature in 1997." "This partially corrected data set is the one we made accessible to people on our web site and through ClimDB until Feb 2014. At least one paper has reached erroneous conclusions about long term trends based on these data (Huey et al. 2009)." "The differences in instrumentation have introduced differences in the data between these two periods, and treating them as a single data set misrepresents the data." Knowing this, I think it's fair to say that any data prior to 1997 is invalid. Now take the graph in [1] and disregard 1997 backwards, and it paints an entirely different picture doesn't it? [1] https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/image_thumb-85.png?w=765&h=774 https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/... [2] http://luq.lternet.edu/data/luqmetadata16 http://luq.lternet.edu/data/luqmetadata16
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      I have no intention of debating with someone who has already misrepresented the debate once, especially someone that refuses to link or share a credible resource. As far as I have searched, every single link 'debunking' this study is coming from sites that deliberately peddle fake information such as Breitbart. I have debated and dealt with far too many climate skeptics that deliberately point out one small part of a study and misconstrue it in attempt to debunk the entire thing.
      - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Do you have any credible source for 3? GWPF is a firmly denialist think tank set up by Nigel Lawson, one of the most strident deniers who has often and easily been caught lying on many readily checked points. GWPF has been repeatedly criticised for its misinformation, its opaque funding and lied about sources, and breached Charity Commission rules on impartiality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundati...

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Hang on just a bloody minute. The recent study "heavily pushed by the likes of the Guardian" (sic) refers to an entirely different meta study[1] of 73 global reports. No mention of or link to the older study you cite. The meta study concludes intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines, particularly the heavy use of pesticides. Urbanisation and climate change are also significant factors. So the failure or otherwise of the temperature record in a single location is mostly irrelevant to their findings. If it is even included in the analysis at all. What a delightful illustration for a thread on disinformation and fake news. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320718313636 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632071...

SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
If you think I'm denying climate change, you've misunderstood my point. My point is that disinformation campaigns are not solely an endeavour of nefarious actors with an agenda. They are also undertaken by those with noble intentions. Climate alarmists are a good example of that. Should we give disinformation campaigns a free pass if they're done with good intentions?
SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
"No mention of or link to the older study you cite." It's right there in the 4th paragraph.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Which is link to a previous article, so adds a level of indirection. If you'd cited that in the first place, fine. Even if the complaint letter turns out to be upheld (unlikely given the history of the authors, but you never know), it doesn't affect, or even question, the conclusion of the meta study in the Guardian piece you did link to. The one that concludes climate is only a significant secondary factor. Until said letter is upheld as finding a valid flaw in the study, it's worthless. That's how science progresses. Individual studies are found accurate or wanting, further research confirms, disputes or adds precision. A few steps from the hyperbole of "flawed to the point of uselessness", as though it is already proven.