Data and evidence amomgst the undertrained are for very few

I fully expect to become the butt of all the acolytes of Paul Beckwith – despite the FACTS.

People believe what they want to believe.

Hate to say it but Paul Beckwith has produced a real hack piece

Having "sweated" to produce the best-possible evidence of rapidly-increasing evidence and wanting, along with many others, I was somewhat happy to see that Paul Beckwith for one, was going to, not only acknowledge, but talk about what we had found.

  

I needn't have bothered

After giving a somewhat half-hearted "good work, Margo" he announces he is going to have a look at my article.

In a few seconds he can see Guy McPherson's picture and it is clear that he disliked it and was out of there as quickly as possible.

It is clear that he hasn't even bothered to look at the article before and it is hard to respond to evidence you don't even bother to look at. 

 

None of our evidence for Paul - not even a criticism and barely an acknowledgement!

And what does he bring in turn as his evidence (after he has spurned ours)? Nothing.  Compared with our article and its well-researched evidence, nothing.

Less than nothing.

It's not as if we are substantively disagreeing. We are not. After all the title of his second video is Global Methane Rise Literally Off-the-Charts.

I regard the failure to acknowledge others' work (or still worse, steal it) as a cardinal academic sin.

I have other issues that all this brings up.

It is galling to see, after putting so much effort to put evidence ahead - and I am not sayingI am RIGHT - simply that both Margo and I have done more than our best.

So I am sensitive towards people putting out videos where no thought has been paid to the material but has just been ad-libbed that ignores the work we have been doing without acknowledgement, let alone correction.

One indication of how much monitoring is actually being done by Mr.Beckwith is that he had to ask me how to get into the CAMS website because it didn't work on Internet Explorer.

If he was doing what he implies he is doing he wouldn't have to ask= it would already be in his bookmarks.

Still worse are some of the comments and behaviour. that appear in the comments.

For a star, there was someone posting as "Guy McPherson". But Guy has no personal YouTube  presence and so is an impostor and should be treated as such.

Several approaches have been made (including by me) and so the comments seem to have been removed.

Not so, these comments about Margo that should not be tolerated by anyone

I feel so "healed"....by some dumb piece of shit medium in the US lol You gotta hand it to her, she has a hypnotic voice Imagine being a faith healer spiritual medium with a really loud screachy voice...RELAX!!! SATAN IS AMONG US!!! AARGHHHH METHANE METHANE CHRYSTAL BALL!!!!! Frikking snake oil sellers should be treated as the pieces of shit they are.

---Forest Dweller

Thanks Paul. It only makes sense Copernicus or others at some point have to adjust scales. Nothing nefarious indeed. People should really know better than to get climate info from a faith healer hypnotist who claims this is all the work of Satan. She's a scam. I gave her some links to sites such as Worldview. What do you know...next she's making videos about it saying her spiritual intuition guided her to discover a new website. Bullshit! Most scientist seem to prefer the NOAA data which comes in many levels and they are often looking around level 80 i notice. It's here: https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/soundings/iasi/index.html

---Forest Dweller

I find it beyond reprehensible that a person can endulge in character assasination which is libelous. I find it equally bad that this person (who has a You Tube account but no vdeos) is ALLOWED to get away with it.

I say that the person whose account it is is responsible for removing such totally (by any ethical standards)  completely  unacceptable material from You Tube.

The failure to do so is a measure of the person. 

After all they were asked to remove the material and I was told in a private message that this would happen.

Paul Beckwith, in his first video, excuses the actions of CAMS as a good thing - that it will aid us in trying to differentiate the data..

Very odd, that even as a non-expert I had no difficulty in distinguishing  - especially at the higher values.  The issue was that that upper value (marked by dark brown) was meaningless since it went from a lower level to more or less infinity.

Another look at the CAMS data

Have a look and you will see that nothing has changed. 

 

The upper values have been changed (without informing anyone)- from 2300 ppb to 75,000 ppb -  and then to 10,000 ppm.

What is the significance of these figures?

What are they supposed to signify.

So, as far as determining what the latest values mean we are no better off.

And then there's the case of the colour coding. It seems self-evident that people are going to read all that lovely BLUE as low values .

In fact, it represents 1800 ppb which is yesterday's average.

There is nothing be lower than that.

How reassuring!!

There is something perhaps more serious than pulling the wool over the eyes of people.

That is that with three totally unannounced changes to the colour scheme it becomes impossible to make any comparisons.

Conspiracy theory, some will scream at the top of their voice; but a bureaucratic decisions made in a committee room IS a conspiracy. I do not need to look into the minds of these bozos (the expression used by Joe Neubarth) to determine weather it is intended or not.

That is the effect of it all.

  I had done a quick calculation and made the conclusion that methane values have gone up by at least 200 ppb. But it turns out I may have been wrong.

In the week Margo did her interview with Guy McPherson there was  a 3,000 ppb methane spike and Margo found a sudden jump  of emissions from one colour to the next. So, in a short time, according to the third colour scheme (which was operational at the time) jumped from about 1800 ppb (green) to red (1900 ppb)

Now look at the colour coding again.

At a certain time CAMS replaced the third ledger without telling anyone so that the colour red, which covered much of the Arctic suddenly became 1920- 2040 ppb.

Now they have made a THIRD change so that the red now represents up to 2140 ppb.

I have just had it clarified that the OLD system (with a maximum of 2320 ppm) is still there in parallel with the second, (meaning that depending on what URL address you had you got different versions).
Here is the NEW system 

The whole thing is a terrible dog's breakfast and reeks of incompetence.
 
It has always been a principle that data should be in a form that can be interpreted and compared. In the pre-computer age hard data was taken and graphs made for comparison.

I have seen numerous examples of changes and manipulation of data online. Our local council presents data on the volume of water in our Hutt River. They have made it IMPOSSIBLE to do any serious interpretation as they keep changing the way the data is presented.

I have been told (and fully believe) that the data for UV levels has been manipulated so that the earlier, lower values now seem as if they have always been that way.

So, despite what everyone else wants to accept data IS being manipulated and I believe strongly that it is unlikely there is a fully innocent explanation for these changes.

If you believe there is I would say you have almost zero understanding about the way the world works.

In conclusion, if CAMS had not made one of their sneaky changes (you show me their notifications) I might have been able to tell the order of increase in  methane emissions.  But now THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Now, every time we want to look at the data we have to have the above representation of the colour ledgers by your side to ensure you are not being duped by the data. 

Comparing the data bearing in mind the change in the colour ledgers may show that the increases have been EVEN GREATER THAN I HAD ORIGINALLY THOUGHT.

A life without values is a life not worth living

On a different theme - and this time it is my subjective view, not analysis - it is my strong view that a life devoid of values and morality is a life not worth living. 

The materialists and atheists in our midst think that life itself (and hence human industrial civilisation) is the highest value, that physical survival  is paramount  even if that means becoming dehumanised in the process - and I am talking about values, human decency.

This excuses any sort of diabolical abomination, whether it be geoengineering, waging war - human survival is paramount!

I could not agree with this less. 

There is a spiritual war going on amongst those who ostensibly acknowledge the reality of abrupt climate change.  I will repeat what I said in my recent video - "either it is going to come to an end soon or I am"