“From Scientist to Activist”

Guest slam dunk by David Middleton

H/t to Dr. Willie Soon

From Scientist to Activist
Heather Price
Sep 5

[…]

When I taught my first climate class at UW in 2001, the El Nino year of 1998 was the warmest year on record and carbon dioxide was 367ppm. Today, that record breaking year, 1998, doesn’t even rank among the top ten hottest years.

[…]

https://medium.com/@huprice/from-scientist-to-activist-5a4ffe13e2cb

A prerequisite for teaching “climate” should be the ability to spell “El Niño”. That said, her transformation from scientist to activist is…

UAH v6.0 (°C), 12-month running average, Wood for Trees

More like fully completed…. “Today, that record breaking year, 1998,” is still a very close second warmest year “on record.”

Advertisements

89 thoughts on ““From Scientist to Activist”

  1. We have Austrian climate change alarmists planting trees in football stadiums as a way of preserving forests against the onslaught of CO2. Don’t they know CO2 is causing global greening? (NASAs ‘global greening’ study).

    The ability of these people to lie to themselves, to self delude, is staggering.

  2. “is still a very close second warmest year “

    Her link was to GISS, which measures temperatures on the surface. Where we live, and where UW is located. And she’s right. 2018, 2017 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2010, 2009, 2007 were warmer than 1998. 2012, 2006 and 2002 were equal.

      • Welcome to the Holocene Interglacial, still, it’s not as warm as the last four dating back 500,000 years!

        • hope its really, really cold. Else the super heated temperatures will suck the enjoyment straight from the container.

      • ..you mean like this past July…hottest ever…by 7/100th of a degree

        global warming theory says it should have been hotter

      • Sometimes I value your comments. This one I do not. You don’t play the ball, you play the man.

        Besides, your rat’s parts is probably language that’ll get lesser people here moderated. I don’t mind per se, but that’s stuff that gets used when one’s out of arguments.

        • In football, real football, you play the man, into the ground preferably. If the man fumbles, then you play the ball. Until then, you do your best to knock the man on his @$$.

          @$$ isn’t even a word and euphemisms generally aren’t prohibited. Although, I should have said that the fact that she linked to an activist website, proves my point… And the Hanson-Schmidt Climate Propaganda Machine is just about as activist as it gets.

          • It’s very easy to say what rat’s privates I give about GISS. But in the end, being able to win the big fight means each one the people should stop entertaining themselves with some helmeted ellipsoid wrestling and replace all that with functional arguments. I know you are mostly capable of argumenting.

            Now, GISS index is something that is obviously cherry picked, but so are all indices in a situation where we end up with making an average temperature. They’re all going up on the longer term, and the point is really are they going up too fast or just barely.

            Fighting talking points like “how many years have topped a record at some point” which is with context a ridiculous one to start with, is pretty useless, but if you do it, please try to do it in a manner that will have some traction in it. People should be persuaded to not panic, not to strangle each other.

          • Hugs,

            Of the four major temperature indices, only GISS has 1998 out of the top 10.

            The activist only linked to GISS to support her sweeping assertion that 1998 was out of the top 10. When faced with the fact that 1998 was #2 in UAH, an activist babbled that she linked to GISS, not UAH. When faced with the fact that 1998 was in the top 10 of RSS and HadCRUT4, another activist babbled about Cowfarts & Weigh… There is no way to “gain traction” in Wack-aMole.

    • I don’t know the context of the quote. She could’ve said, According to GISTEMP. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1998/plot/best/from:1998/trend According to BEST, since 1998 we’ve had less than 0.2 C per decade. Which is boring. Add 10 years to lessen the cherry pick: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1988/plot/best/from:1988/trend Still less than 0.2 C per decade. We are biased by the pause which didn’t exist though. She also gets points for suggesting she’s an activist.

      Here’s the reasonable and more defensible position. Add in other temp series besides the UAH. Here’s the argument. But the UAH says this. It’s one of the most predictable arguments.

    • I am curious, Mr. Stokes. Do you believe that ‘homogenizing’ data, known to be contaminated with the UHI effect, with data that is untainted, is a proper statistical method for revealing a scientific truth about the surface temperature? Do you believe that all the arguments for cooling historical surface temperatures are scientifically ands statistically legitimate? Do you believe that humans did not have the ability to take an accurate temperature reading 100 year ago, and that all such temperatures need to be corrected by an amount that can be precisely determined in the present with very little knowledge of the actual conditions surrounding the original measurements? Do you believe that the large correction for ‘time-of-day’ observations is warranted, when a regional comparison of observations taken using both methods shows virtually no statistical difference in average temperatures for the region. Finally, do you believe that these corrections are being made completely on the basis of sound scientific information and that those making these adjustments were not influenced at all by their desire comport their findings with the man-made climate crisis theory, and if so, then why didn’t the good scientists of the 60s and 70s at least acknowledge the need for these corrections and at these magnitudes?

      • “Do you believe that all the arguments for cooling historical surface temperatures are scientifically ands statistically legitimate?”

        You mean to say that the Data Manipulators acutally explain their adjustments to the surface temperature record? Where? The last I heard, the Data Manipulators refuse to share their reasons for cooling the past and warming the present. Have I missed something?

        Perhaps we could have an explanation for why NASA Climate and NOAA decided to demote 1998 to an “also-ran” year instead of being as warm as the warmest year in the satellite era. I would love to hear the explanation for that. I know the reason: they want to promote the CAGW fraud, but I would love to hear their reasoning, although I’m pretty sure they are not going to provide it. Just like they don’t provide explanations for any other modification they do.

    • The problem with the air temps at the surface “where we live” – besides contamination – is that you know very well that the lower troposphere should be warming at least as fast…and it isn’t.

      But getting back to GISS. I spot-checked the last “equal” year you noted…2002. GISS originally said it was “second warmest” and “almost as warm as” 1998. This was when 2002 was 0.51 deg C above the 1951-1980 average. Fast forward to today, and it is 0.63 deg C. Adjustments have raised the anomaly by 20%. Why report it to 0.01 deg C when the net adjustments to 2002 have been on order of 0.01 deg PER YEAR since then? What a farce. But go ahead and pretend that the number is right this time. I am sure you were defending then 2002 value 15+ yrs ago, too.

      • Maybe it’s just me… But the greenhouse effect is best measured in the troposphere, rather than at airports.

    • Nick.

      Maybe I am wrong,
      but the consideration of the warming in yearly standard, can not be derived or assessed, for comparison or any other motivation, in the consideration of the climatic trend product…
      that will be too juvenile and too misleading,
      intentionally so… I think!

      What do you think Nick!

      Especially when considering that a climatic warming trend happens to be a product of
      “climate formatting” or ” climatisation” of the real temp data with a technical propagating positive bias applied as a means to have it as polished and clear as possible.

      It is a double take fallacy, Nick,,, as far as I can tell.

      cheers

    • Well , once they’d rigged the GISS data by Karlisation to remove the plateau and down play 1998 peak she may be right. That does not mean the world got warmer since she started at UW, it means the data got changed.

      Karl’s “pause buster” paper was rushed through without proper validation and review in order to be released before the Paris climate talks. It was pure politics not science.

    • And 1934 was warmer than all of them (at least it was before your fellow activists “adjusted” the past to be cooler).

    • The 3rd runway at Seattle-Tacoma airport was completed in 2008..absolutely amazing that all those record temperatures recorded for Seattle where UW is located occurred after increasing the concrete next to the thermometer at the airport by 50%.

  3. Let’s correct her statement for her.
    “Today, that MUCH ADJUSTED record breaking year, 1998, doesn’t even rank among the top ten hottest years.

  4. I recall that, in 2001, the US government’s warmistas had yet not got around to doctoring the historical temperature records to make the past appear cooler. So, in 2001, 1934 was still the warmest on record in the US.

    • Here is a good picture of how the Data Manipulators have bastardized the temperature record:

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NASA-US-1999-2016-2.gif

      Hansen said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998. As you can see, the Data Manipulators cooled the past and warmed the present and changed 1934 from being warmer than 1998, to 1934 being cooler than 1998.

      The CAGW Fraudsters couldn’t have 1934 showing to be warmer than today because this would prevent them from claiming that we were experiencing unprecedented warmth today attributable to CO2. If it was as warm in the past with much lower CO2 levels, as it is today, then that eliminates CO2 as a driver of the climate, and demonstrates that Mother Nature is the one in control.

      We have criminals in charge of the world’s temperature data. They are fooling millions of people with their CAGW Fraud and are costing them Trillions of dollars in unnecessary expenses, and no doubt, costing lives that wouldn’t otherwise be lost if not for the Fraud being taken seriously by way too many people, who then take counterproductive actions guided by bastardized science.

      Most of the warming we see today is in the fraudulent adjustments of the surface temperature record. The United States is actually in a cooling trend since 1934. Other regional surface temperature charts from around the world show the same temperature profile as the Hansen 1999 U.S. chart, where the 1930’s are as warm as subsequent years. Hansen 1999 (the chart shown above as part of the gif) is the true global temperature profile: as warm in the 1930’s as it is today.

      The Data Manipulators changed the global temperature record profile to favor their CAGW fraud, but they didn’t get rid of the old historic regional temperatue records, so we have a “before and after” picture of what these Charlatans did. We also have them conspiring together in the Climategate emails to distort the temperature record and erase the warm periods of the past to make it look like things are getting hotter and hotter and hotter on Earth. They are liars. Criminal liars.

  5. Hey David, and H/t to Dr. Willie Soon, Heather is just now getting support from that famous, internationally known, climate scientist, Mick Jagger. That’s right, he is all over President Trump for ignoring Climate Change and is himself jumping into the cause. I suppose his theme song will be “I Can’t Get No (sic) Satisfaction”?

    • Hey, leave poor (well not really) old Mick alone! He’s entitled to fly as many airmiles as he wants & have as many mansions as he wants too! His new theme song will be, “I can’t get no, sanatogen!” 😉

      • In other breaking news, Keith Richards has been found alive in a hotel room, confounding all notions of the deadly effects of alcohol, smoking, and drugs.
        (My theory has to do with the well known preservative effect of the pickling process)
        At this point, had we not best think of what kind of a world we want to leave behind for Keith when we leave?

        • I have often maintained that Keith Richards died in 1977, but that no body told him. Your punch line is far more clever. +10!

        • I thought Keith Richards died in the 70s but they stand him up on stage and nobody knows the difference.

    • Theme song for their mass psychosis: “1̶9̶t̶h̶ Climate Nervous Breakdown”

      You better stop
      Look around
      Here it comes
      Here it comes
      Here it comes
      Here it comes
      Here comes your climate nervous breakdown

      Oh who’s to blame?
      That cult’s just insane
      Well nothing they say don’t seem to work
      It only makes their grey matter worse
      Oh pleee eeee eeee eeez

    • In her defense of a nit you picked, our American English alphabet has only 26 letters. When some Spanish words had been added to our language in the past, some changes in spelling were made, e.g. canyon, pinyon, without the enyay letter. Notice that the masculine article “el” wasn’t part of the word.

      This has bothered me since this ocean phenomena was noticed by scientists late last millennium and documented as first being noticed in northwestern South America, who referred to it for the time of year when it intermittently started (though I’m not sure if they had documented the 11 year average cycle). Rather than using the English translation, the term itself was used.

      Yes, computers can generate fonts easily now. IMO this is a poor excuse for adding letters to a defined language.

      It could be respelled either ninyo or, to keep it pronounced correctly, neenyo. The English articles “the” or “a” can then be used to avoid “the elneenyo” or “an elneenyo”.

      The cycle that sometimes follows the Neenyo event would also need to be respelled, even though it has already been misspelled, in the US anyway, by grammar school teaching about a ship used by Christopher Columbus, when not quite civilized Europeans began sailing west at the end of the 15th century.

      • It is Spanish phrase. The English translation would be “the boy”. “Ninyo” is wronger than Nino.

      • In the age of tweets, thumbs, and spellcheck, English spelling and grammar have lost all significance. There, their, and they’re are interchangeable. I and me have lost all relevance. Imagine the response if we called “gender” a grammatical term! Give it up or prepare to be called a “white supremacist grammaticist!”

        • “n the age of tweets, thumbs, and spellcheck, English spelling and grammar have lost all significance.”

          No, they have not. Maybe to you. Speak for yourself.

          “There, their, and they’re are interchangeable.”

          Not even close. If you believe that, you need to study English a little more. Using those words incorrectly just demonstrates the user’s ignorance of their proper usage, which reflects badly on their understanding in general, imo.

    • Yep! She sounds just like Earl Warren whose judicial philosophy as Chief Justice is summed up as: “Is it just, Is it right”.

  6. “In November of 2000, I attended the Conference of the Parties (COP 6) climate negotiations meeting at The Hague, Netherlands, joining about 30 other graduate students from around the USA, with a youth group called Ozone Action. ”

    Hmmm, did they all walk there ? #@$&ing hypocrites….IMHO

  7. “Today, that record breaking year, 1998,” is still a very close second warmest year “on record”

    Well, that’s only true with UAH v6, which is an extreme cherry-pick. All other datasets, for the surface or troposphere, have a lower ranking of 1998.

    The reason is that UAH v6 is a subjective product. Spencer and Christy have made belief-based choises of satellites and adjustments, that are not supported by data..

    • The same can be said for RSS. They’re both modeled products. The fact that it agrees with fake data doesn’t make it more accurate.

    • All of the “cherry-picking” is on the asshat activist who wrote this…

      Today, that record breaking year, 1998, doesn’t even rank among the top ten hottest years.

      1998 is in the top 10 of both RSS and HadCRUT4. The only temperature series in which it isn’t in the top 10, are activist temperature series, like GISTEMP.

      • It’s nothing wrong with Gistemp loti. 1998 is not top 10 in the other two similar products, Cowtan & Way and BEST land/ocean.
        If anyone blame nefarious adjustment for this, I could mention that the BEST raw land dataset has 1998 in 15th place.
        1998 ranks higher in troposphere products, because they are more sensitive to el Nino. However, no other troposphere dataset (satellite, radiosonde or reanalysis) have 1998 in top four, except UAH 6.
        UAH v6 excels by having the highest ranking of 1998, and the lowest temperature trend after 1998, of all current datasets. With other words, a natural choice for the motivated cherry-picker.

        • And how many of the United State’s individual highest “evah” record temperatures have occurred since and including 1998? 2?

          How many in the 1930s? 23? Counting DC, 24. How many BEFORE 1940? 32 including DC? How many before 1998, 49 out of 51 when including DC.

          Before I did ANY research on “Global Warming” I saw the Hockey Stick graph. Knowing a little bit about HISTORY I knew it had to be BS. The straight shaft did not show the Medieval warm period or the Little Ice Age. Two historical facts. Remember Washington Crossing the ice filled Delaware River toward the end of the Little Ice Age, and the well improved human existence, at least in Europe, during the warm period. Since then much research has led me to the unmistakable conclusion that global warming is highly questionable as to the total effect caused by human activity but that all those who originally supported the hockey stick graph WERE NOT scientists, regardless of their credentials. How could they NOT see it was BS?

          Yep, I trust the data sets you are referencing, they must be right, they agree with your belief system. They are probably perpetuated by “scientists” who do not refute the hockey stick graph, although if have no data to back up that supposition. Obviously the 10 hottest years “evah” have been in the last 20 years. Don’t look behind the curtain, nothing to see there.

          • Indeed drake, belief in CAGW requires one to be ignorant of history, because if you know the history you’ll see the BS for what it is.

          • “And how many of the United State’s individual highest “evah” record temperatures have occurred since and including 1998? 2?

            How many in the 1930s? 23? Counting DC, 24. How many BEFORE 1940? 32 including DC? How many before 1998, 49 out of 51 when including DC.”

            I was watching a football game yesterday and I saw a man in the crowd wearing a hat that had the figure 1934 written across it. I wondered what it meant and haven’t figured it out yet, but it gave me an idea: What if all skeptics started wearing a hat that showed the “hottest year evah!” in their particular state or province. My hat would read “1936” where the temperatures got up to 120 degrees F that year in Oklahoma.

            Just put the number on your hat. People will ask you about it.

            Someone might even be able to make a little money off marketing these things. 🙂

        • Activist temperature series = GISTEMP and all of its derivatives.

          The Climategate CRU and Mears-ized RSS have 1998 in the top 3 to 6, depending on how you look at it.

    • Funny how UAH actually documents what they do. To me that makes them the most trustworthy … you’d apparently just base your decisions on faith …

    • All of the adjustments have been explained and laid out for the world to see.
      Care to demonstrate which ones aren’t justified?

      • Yes, GISS (unlike some others) have been exemplary in explaining their adjustments.
        But no, these adjustments presuppose that you actually know the location of a station in order to determine whether it is urban or rural from a night time luminance satellite image, and GISS simply ignore that little detail. https://oneillp.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/limassolerror2.jpg
        Or more exactly Dr Hansen simply ignored that little detail when I brought it to his attention in 2010 when he asked for comments on his early draft of Hansen et al 2010, and continued to claim locations were known to 0.01 degrees. Reto Ruedy at least admitted that he was not surprised that there were serious errors in these locations, but went along with publication. At the time I only cited a short list of about a dozen errors, but that should have been sufficient to cause alarm. At this stage, having stopped looking at his inventory some years ago, I could point to about 500 errors sufficiently large to lead to incorrect urban/rural classifications. And the problem has not gone away with the v4 station inventory, just become more difficult to explore because the simple correspondence to the WMO station inventory has been broken.

        • I should add that although these coordinate blunders originate with the GHCN-M inventory (NOAA) they are of lesser importance with GHCN-M, where they are not used to classify stations as rural or urban from satellite images but just to identify 100 nearest stations from which 40 will then be selected on the basis of temperature series correlation with the station being adjusted, and to place the station within the appropriate 5×5 degree grid cell. More care in compiling the location metadata in the inventory would be desirable but is not critical. When GISS chose to use that metadata in a manner not anticipated by NOAA, it was the responsibility of GISS to verify that the metadata was fit for their purpose. The old saying “you broke it, you bought it” applies.

  8. Why is everything now a “record year” or a “record event”… was the world totally dead before the ipcc and u.n started their “we are all going to did” so listen to us and killing billions of people, by taking away their energy and economy…. The world governments solution is to destroy more land or materials by using fossil fuels and to spend Trillions of dollars… I want to know what they want the weather to be like once all of the co2 is taken out of the air?? Will it be a lovely summer’s day for most of the year and cold winters so they can go ice fishing and skiing in 5000 dollar gucci jackets???

    • “Why is everything now a “record year” or a “record event””

      That’s how the alarmists hype their CAGW fraud.

      CO2 is supposed to make things hotter and hotter the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, according to the theory, so the alarmists create a fraudulent surface temperature chart that allows them to claim that the weather is getting hotter and hotter and hotter. This is the main part of their con. They have nothing else to point to that supports their CAGW claims that CO2 is overheating the Earth’s atmosphere.

      The global surface temperature charts are Science Fiction. They tell a false story about reality.

      • Because we are still recovering from the LIA. If Valentina is correct, also heading for a new one, grand solar minimum.

  9. So a climate scientist feels that a short period of warm weather is convincing evidence that humans are the cause. Wow.

    Is that all it takes to transform some people from reasoned thought to delusional superstition, really?

  10. In any case, we’re talking small fractions of a degree. “Hottest” (as if we’re all broiling under a relentless sun) year “ever” (as if we’re talking about countless millennia) is laughable on its face.

  11. From the article: “When I taught my first climate class at UW in 2001, the El Nino year of 1998 was the warmest year on record and carbon dioxide was 367ppm. Today, that record breaking year, 1998, doesn’t even rank among the top ten hottest years.”

    Well, 1998, according to the UAH satellite record is the second warmest temperature in the 40-year satellite era, and is actually statistically tied for the “hottest year evah!” with 2016.

    NASA Climate and NOAA decided to demote 1998, in order to enable them to claim that 2012, and 2013, and 2014, and 2015, were the “hottest year evah!”, to make it appear that temperatures are getting hotter and hotter every year because of increasing CO2.

    The Data Manipulators at NASA Climate and NOAA bastardized the global surface temperature record in order to promote their CAGW fraud.

    They could not have been claiming one “hottest year evah!” after another, if they went by the UAH satellite chart, which shows 1998 as warmer than all subsequent years but 2016. That’s why they don’t go by the UAH satellite chart. It doesn’t favor their claims about CAGW.

    The UAH satellite chart:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2019_v6.jpg

    And the Bogus, Bastardized Hockey Stick to compare it to:

    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Reference-Figure-1.png

    See how on the Hockey Stick chart the Data Manipulators have changed 1998 into an insignificant year. They are lying to the world with this fraudulent Hockey Stick chart.

    Also notice how they demoted the warm decade of the 1930’s, making it appear to be insignificant. We actually have some of these data manipulators conspiring together, in their own words, to do just this and bastardize the global temperature record (see Climategate).

    If the CAGW promoters showed an unmodified chart you would see that the 1930’s should be on the same horizontal line with 2016. In fact, 1934, according to James Hansen, was 0.5C warmer than 1998, and that would make 1934, 0.4C warmer than 2016, going by the UAH chart.

    Well, the CAGW promoters can’t have people seeing that picture because it blows up their CAGW theory. If it was just as warm or warmer in the recent past, then that means there is no unprecedented warming today, no reason to invoke CO2 as adding extra warmth, because there is no extra warmth, and therefore CAGW is shown to be untrue.

    So the CAGW promoters changed the way the temperature record looks in order to perpetrate the CAGW fraud.

    The UAH satellite chart is the only chart worth looking at. All the rest are fabrications created by some real criminals. They may not think of themselves as criminals, but they have done tremendous damage to the whole world with their lies and distortions of the facts. If they did it out of groupthink, then maybe they are not criminals, but the ones who deliberately manipulated the temperature record to push a political agenda are definitely criminals and should be punished for their criminality. Perhaps this will happen some day.

  12. Timber Joe has got to get hisself a new chainsaw.
    Loggers in British Columbia would be three times as fast in sawing a round.
    Emitting less CO2.
    🙂

  13. Isn’t it illegal to falsify government data? Any lawyers out there who can explain how they get away with this?

  14. I think the major error is in ‘hottest’, as the temperature barely nudges and the trend requires lot of work to be observed.

  15. What Ms Price doesn’t realize is that her own self-admitted transformation from “Science (Teacher) to Activist” with her students in the classroom is why our universities haven’t descending into nothing more than Student Debt Traps without the critical thinking skills imparted to justify the debt taken on.

  16. When I taught my first climate class at UW in 2001, the El Nino year of 1998 was the warmest year on record and carbon dioxide was 367ppm.

    In 2001, 1998 was the second hottest year – the hottest being in the 1930s (as that hadn’t yet been cooled by her fellow activists yet). When you fail to get the facts right in the set-up sentence, all else that follows on from that is a logic fail.

    • It’s amazing how facts are altered to fit the AGW narrative. Do you reckon they’ll burn the books, later?

Comments are closed.