Reply With Quote
Well , now I completely convinced all data and models are wrong.
I'm confused was this guy a scientist? Did he fake evidence?
Well , now I completely convinced all data and models are wrong.
The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
...
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ming-data.html
telegraph is no more believable than any right wing or Murdock rag, etc, etc.
Even a Repug Wall Streeter 0.01% bag admits AGW is true and leading to a catastrophe.
The Coming Climate Crash
This is a crisis we can’t afford to ignore. I feel as if I’m watching as we fly in slow motion on a collision course toward a giant mountain. We can see the crash coming, and yet we’re sitting on our hands rather than altering course.
We need to act now, even though there is much disagreement, including from members of my own Republican Party, on how to address this issue while remaining economically compe ive. They’re right to consider the economic implications. But we must not lose sight of the profound economic risks of doing nothing.
The solution can be a fundamentally conservative one that will empower the marketplace to find the most efficient response. We can do this by putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide — a carbon tax. Few in the United States now pay to emit this potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere we all share. Putting a price on emissions will create incentives to develop new, cleaner energy technologies.
I’m a businessman, not a climatologist. But I’ve spent a considerable amount of time with climate scientists and economists who have devoted their careers to this issue. There is virtually no debate among them that the planet is warming and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/op...sion.html?_r=0
Unscientific nut who's been descredited time and time again says that scientists are lying. People like you believe him even when evidence that is open for all to see says otherwise. This is worse than simple conformation bias, IMO.
Anyway, go to link for those who think this is some kind of NASA/NOAA conspiracy:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Furthermore, it was recently released that May 2014 was the hottest may globally on record. Every month that comes out like this (June has so far been extremely warm as well) really pushes us toward the hottest year on record. But sure, its cooling.
What do you think should be done now to stop the projected warming of the next 30 years from occurring?
Carbon tax.
carbon tax to include carbon tax on transport fuel
Also renewal, expansion of the wind production tax credit.
Lots of stuff available, but BigCarbon and electric utilities will buy enough legislators, esp Repugs, to block nearly all of it.
There's virtually nothing that can be done to prevent the warming in the next 30 years from occurring but there's a lot that can be done to prevent warming in the future from occurring in the next 30 years.
Well, we can stop the soot emissions that are melting the arctic ice, and we can reestablish a proper network of climate stations.
Get rid of FILNET data corruption.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ush...e-etal2009.pdf
Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area
NOAA’s temperature control knob for the past, the present, and maybe the future – July 1936 now hottest month again →
Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area
Posted on June 29, 2014 by Anthony Watts
by Harold Ambler
The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, which, as I reported in my book, has been steadily increasing throughout the period of satellite measurement that began in 1979, has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage.
The new record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s The Cryosphere Today early Sunday morning.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/2...-sea-ice-area/
EDITORIAL: Rigged ‘science’
The Supreme Court swallows faked global warming data
A fractured Supreme Court on Monday largely upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s radical rule designed to shut down the power plants that produce the most affordable electricity. The justices continue to accept the EPA’s labeling of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.” This harmless gas, the agency insists, is melting the planet.
Only the brave deny man’s responsibility for super-heating the globe in precincts where the wise and wonderful (just ask them) gather to reassure each other than they know best. “We know the trends,” President Obama told the graduates at the University of California at Irvine the other day. “The 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born.”
SEE ALSO: Obama mocks climate change skeptics as paranoid about ‘liberal plot’
The charts and graphs devised by NASA and the government’s other science agencies back up the president’s words. And well they should, because the charts, like the “science,” were faked.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...igged-science/
washingtontimes.com
"Rev." moonbat comics
Another gift from TX to America, San Antonio's own old, white, inherited-wealth, (Christian "Scientist"?) Alamo Heights Lamar Smith
How One GOP-Controlled Committee Is Waging a War on Science
At a March 26 hearing of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Republican congressmen took turns attacking President Obama's top science advisor, John Holdren. On climate change, their statements became increasingly heated, accusatory, and bizarre.
Southern California conservative Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) challenged Holdren on the fact that about 97 percent of the world's practicing climate scientists agree that human activity is responsible for climate change. "Why can't anybody admit that you've got a group of people putting out a bogus figure here?" he charged.
Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) noted that the earth had warmed in between ice ages, without any people around. So how could humans be blamed for the current warming?
"Just because we're alive now," he reasoned, "the tectonic plate shifts aren't gonna stop, the hurricanes [and] tsunamis aren't gonna stop, the asteroid strikes aren't gonna stop."
Finally, Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas), an air-conditioning company founder from Pearland, Texas, noted to Holdren, a climate scientist and MacArthur "Genius Grant" recipient, that "I may want to get your cell phone, because if we go through cycles of global warming and then back to global cooling, I need to know when to buy my long coat on sale."
Soon after, a Scientific American headline concluded that the committee was becoming "a national embarrassment."
Since Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) took over as chairman of the House Science Committee in the beginning of 2013, the GOP majority has been waging a war. Its enemies list is long: The Environmental Protection Agency. The National Science Foundation. Rules that prevent industries from polluting the air and groundwater. Climate scientists studying the effects of a warming planet.
The very notion of non-politicized, peer-reviewed scientific inquiry.
For years, the House Science Committee was a quiet congressional backwater. Typically, its most contentious battles were over the future of American space exploration.
Smith has changed that. The traditionally collegial committee has been pursuing a more aggressive and party-driven agenda –- one that's closely aligned with the GOP’s relentless promotion of the fossil-fuel industry. Though critics say Smith's campaign has been scattershot and at least somewhat dysfunctional, they're alarmed about what could result from the various bills he's pushed over the last 18 months.
Stocked with corporate-trained lobbyists in key staff positions, the committee's majority has repeatedly attacked the EPA from several different vantage points. The committee participated in the congressional GOP's efforts to block or limit virtually all regulations on coal, oil and natural gas facilities – including a reinvigorated effort to delegitimize and ultimately scrap the most important existing such laws like the Clean Air Act by tarnishing seminal studies conducted by researchers with Harvard University and the American Cancer Society. After encountering resistance to that effort, committee Republicans went much further by pushing a bill that would disallow the EPA from using any confidential data or information – a measure seemingly designed to completely disrupt its ability to protect the public.
The GOP majority likewise has taken the lead in efforts to place tight reins on the National Science Foundation by attempting to exert political control over federally funded scientific research, an effort that has science advocates up in arms.
Through the "EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act," the committee's majority is trying to alter the way the EPA selects and uses its internal Science Advisory Boards, which are meant to provide independent review of the science conducted by the agency. One of the bill's main consequences, a committee Democrat concluded, would be to ensure "an overrepresentation of industry voices" on the panels.
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-an...age=1#bookmark
Thanks, TX Repugs! All y'all rednecks and your politicians suck hind on boar hog.
NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/no...#ixzz36BC86pdd
You aren't helping your case with snarky op-eds.
Snarky op-eds are exactly the kinds of things pseudoscientists do about things they don't like.
You are making the case of the OP for me.
Was that what you were trying to do?
Real science self-corrects when given the chance to add and improve data. This is what one would expect from an organization that was attempting to become as accurate as possible.When asked about climate data adjustments by the DCNF back in April, NOAA send there have been “several scientific developments since 1989 and 1999 that have improved the understanding of the U.S. surface temperature record.”
“Many station observations that were confined to paper, especially from early in the 20th century, have been scanned and keyed and are now digitally available to inform these time series,” Deke Arndt, chief of NOAA’s Climate Monitoring Branch, told TheDCNF.
“In addition to the much larger number of stations available, the U.S. temperature time series is now informed by an improved suite of quality assurance algorithms than it was in the late 20th Century,” Deke said in an emailed statement.
The reaction of the people that I am claiming to be pseudoscientists is pretty much in line with what one would expect from someone who does not hew to scientific rigors or think that scientific processes are somehow rigged by a conspiracy to produce results that contradict his pre-existing beliefs.
“This constant change from year to year of what is or is not the hottest month on record for the USA is not only unprofessional and embarrassing for NOAA, it’s bull of the highest order,” Watts [i.e. watts up with that-RG] wrote. “It can easily be solved by NOAA stopping the unsupportable practice of adjusting temperatures of the past so that the present looks different in context with the adjusted past and stop making data for weather stations that have long since closed.”
Pseudoscientists cherry pick data that suits them, and ignore wider contexts.
This is the kind of thing that 9-11 twoofers have to do in order to maintain their inaccurate worldviews. Find the ONE bit of data to cling to, ignore anything else that contradicts it, and claim that anyone who puts forth data that contradicts this world view is part of the conspiracy.
Missing bits of context:
What about the land ice?
What is happening at the other pole?
How thick is the sea ice? (volume has three dimensions, length, width and depth, so it is possible for something to be longer and wider, but still have less volume).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/arct...ic-sea-ice.htm
The Polar Prognosis
As thinner and younger ice is easier to melt, the rapid Arctic melt is set to continue; ice-free summers are now probably inevitable. In contrast, the Antarctic increase is occurring despite the warming of the Southern Ocean and is expected to reverse as the warming continues. Antarctic sea ice is just a distraction from the accelerating losses from ice sheets and the looming specter of a sea-ice-free Arctic.
How do you improve data? We have a given temperature set, say from 1940. How do you improve it in 2014? By altering it to read what you want it to read?
One of the major tenants of science is reproducibility.
You can increase the sample rate, increase sample locations, improve the detection equipment precision and accuracy, you can filter the datasets using various means. There are simple database structure changes that can improve efficiency and the like on the IT end.
the list goes on. That you have to ask this question just speaks to how profoundly ignorant you are.
Your critical thinking hit the spot. From what I understand the Antarctic is swampy for lack of a better term with much of the inland being below sea level. It used to be a heap on top as millennia of precipitation was trapped there but warmer ocean water is undermining it and it is melting causing it to spread.
That there is more ice on the sea rather is not good. it means that it has migrated from land and ice does raise sea level when it does that.
Or you can just fake them like they have and make them support your theory.
You can improve data, if you either add to an existing database, or become aware, after the fact, that there is some in-built distortion.
Do you have any shred of evidence that, in this case, the modifications were deliberately to produce some desired outcome?
Same question. Provide some proof of motive for this conspiracy.
I noted that you didn't seem too plussed that the watts article essentially cherry-picked the data he wanted.
Do you think that ignoring most of the evidence in favor of just the small part of it that seems to support your theory is honest?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions