E
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
- Status
T
Theo520
Guest
As climate change warms the nation, giant Burmese pythons could colonize one-third of the USA, from San Francisco across the Southwest, Texas and the South and up north along the Virginia coast, according to U.S. Geological Survey maps released Wednesday.
www.usatoday.com, 20 Feb 2008
“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
On July 5, 1989, Noel Brown, then the director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming — “entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
This. They have created a world of skeptics.
T
Theo520
Guest
Other disciplines (besides climate scientists) are now demanding access to the grant trough
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
H
Hans_W
Guest
What more rubbish coming out of FoxNews!?
“Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.”
That alone tells me that the whole thing is bogus. Any high school kid would have got that question right.
E
estesbob
Guest
Argumentum Ad Hominen
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Sadly, having been around many high school kids and seen the state of education in the US today, I find it very credible that many folks wouldn’t understand that floating ice will not be contributor to sea level rise. The state of our education explains why there has been such a lack of critical thinking in looking at the claims of MMGW advocates.
H
Hans_W
Guest
I was under the impression that these questions were addressed to scientists who stand on both sides. I need to correct myself.
“The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science”.
So these were 2,000 people taken off the street?! What relevance does that have on the question of GW?
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Eh, if I read it correctly, it was a survey done in response to another survey trying to figure out whether MMGW advocates or skeptics had better familiarity with the actual science. If you read through to the conclusion it’s basically saying that the skeptics are familiar with the science and it’s better to engage them in discussions on the science than to call them names.
S
sps49
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
H
Hans_W
Guest
Well, that conclusion doesn’t apply to this thread
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The survey quoted has no relevance to this thread. And here is why. The survey asked 2000 respondents - ordinary people - what they thought about what scientists believed about global warming. Then their answers were correlated with whether they identified themselves as GW believers or skeptics. There were 9 questions. And what the survey supposedly showed was that those who identified as skeptics got at least as many and maybe more correct than the GW believers.
So let’s see. Suppose I am an undecided individual on the GW question. And I am considering using this survey to decide what is the real truth. Why would I want to do that? Why would anyone want to do that??? That would be like trying to determine the best way to hit a baseball by asking the fans in the stands rather than the players with high batting averages.
S
sps49
Guest
On the contrary. Since the question and debate has become politicized, it is completely relevant to the discussion. To use your analogy, it appears that the people in the stands have been discovered to have a hitherto unknown ability to grasp the concept related to successful batting, In fact, they have been invited by the batters to have a dialog.
Climate science has promoted more public outreach and participation than almost any other branch of science. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, it’s safe to say that it must be dealt with publicly. I wonder if this was an anticipated outcome?
The public’s concern with the potential of data manipulation is understandable due to the great potential cost monkeying with the primary energy source of a society. The survey suggests that the public is in a position to weigh the facts around how data are collected and analyzed, and that is the relevance to this thread. But you already knew that.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
The AGW scam is being pushed so that more Marxist laws will be passed.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The survey does not suggest anything about the general public’s ability to process the facts better than educated scientists. All it shows is that one group of non-scientists are a little better than another group of non-scientists at answering 9 specific questions about climate science. Those 9 questions cannot possibly provide a comprehensive set for the field. And whether one group of non-scientists does better than another cannot have much relevance for the real question of finding the truth about global warming.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
From “Noise on the Telegraph” at realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/noise-on-the-telegraph/:
"I was surprised by the shrill headlines from a British newspaper with the old fashioned name the Telegraph: “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever”. So what is this all about?
The story makes serious allegations, however Victor Venema explains why the Telegraph got it wrong in Variable Variability, and makes the point that three hand-picked stations from Paraguay – out of thousands – hardly matters. He also shows the effect of post-processing on the global mean temperature: it reduces the global trend compared to raw data.
The story also sparked some discussion between colleagues at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, where I work, as several of us know the scientist cited in the paper quite well. It would be completely out of character that he’d endorse the views expressed in the article, and this is also what he conveyed to us.
The records show that the recent high temperatures on Iceland are unprecedented, contrary to the main message from the Telegraph. And the evidence is not just in the temperature, but in a wide range of observations…"
End of story, end of this thread!
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Oh, I forgot – weathermen in the US are part of the conspiracy, along with the news channels that cover weather. In league with all those 1000s of climate scientists to bring totalitarian dictatorship to the world.
There really hasn’t been any “natural” snow or blizzard conditions in Boston above the normal. An evil-doer climate alarmist multi-billionaire (making money off his lies) has paid 100 ski-resort snowmaker companies to dump the snow there just so he can “prove” the warming hoax is causing greater Rossby waves and making colder arctic weather patterns dip down to mid-latitude and linger there. But that just isn’t happening. No Rossby waves, no neg arctic oscillations – just a bunch of lies.
He was also the one who put those 100,000 swimming pool heaters in the Arctic Ocean.
They are so corrupt, those warmists, and will go to all lengths to fudge data, scaring little children out of their bejiggers.
These are some of the studies commissioned by that billionaire warmist (whom I won’t name, except to say he’s worse than Al Gore):
"Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid Arctic warming" at iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/1/014005/pdf/1748-9326_10_1_014005.pdf
“…as the Arctic continues to warm faster than elsewhere in response to rising greenhouse-gas concentrations, the frequency of extreme weather events caused by persistent jet-stream patterns will increase…”
"Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall" - pnas.org/content/109/11/4074 - “While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia…”
There really hasn’t been any “natural” snow or blizzard conditions in Boston above the normal. An evil-doer climate alarmist multi-billionaire (making money off his lies) has paid 100 ski-resort snowmaker companies to dump the snow there just so he can “prove” the warming hoax is causing greater Rossby waves and making colder arctic weather patterns dip down to mid-latitude and linger there. But that just isn’t happening. No Rossby waves, no neg arctic oscillations – just a bunch of lies.
He was also the one who put those 100,000 swimming pool heaters in the Arctic Ocean.
They are so corrupt, those warmists, and will go to all lengths to fudge data, scaring little children out of their bejiggers.
These are some of the studies commissioned by that billionaire warmist (whom I won’t name, except to say he’s worse than Al Gore):
"Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid Arctic warming" at iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/1/014005/pdf/1748-9326_10_1_014005.pdf
“…as the Arctic continues to warm faster than elsewhere in response to rising greenhouse-gas concentrations, the frequency of extreme weather events caused by persistent jet-stream patterns will increase…”
"Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall" - pnas.org/content/109/11/4074 - “While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia…”
- Status