The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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…”
Who’d a thunk it? Record snowfalls are evidence of global warming ! That is why global warming is such a great theory to embrace . Absolutely everything that happens with the weather is the result of global warming and even when your predictions are wrong it proves you were right !
 
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.
LOL! It does not matter who can “process the facts” better, that is not a requirement for political discourse or voting. The public was asked to participate, so those who invited the public obviously were prepared for the fruits of that action. It is perfectly democratic in the sense Socrates would point out if he could; it does not matter if you are right in political discourse. Claiming that this is not relevant is a common error of mistaking what we wish were occurring with what is actually occurring. I accept that this is not relevant to you, but you are not the only participant in this comedy.
 
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…”
No More Snow?
For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a “global warming” legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934 — or possibly even 1922, according to the U.K. Register. “It is unusual to have snow this early,” a spokesperson for the alarmist U.K. Met office admitted to The Guardian newspaper. By December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since records began a century ago blanketed the islands with snow.
In early 2004, the CRU’s Viner and other self-styled “experts” warned that skiing in Scotland would soon become just a memory, thanks to alleged global warming. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry,” Viner told The Guardian. Another “expert,” Adam Watson with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, told the paper that the skiing industry in Scotland had less than two decades left to go. Yet in 2013, too much snow kept many Scottish resorts closed. “Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe all remain closed today due to the heavy snow,” reported OnTheSnow.com on January 4, 2013. Ironically, by 2014, the BBC, citing experts, reported that the Scottish hills had more snow than at any point in seven decades. It also reported that the Nevis Range ski resort could not operate some of its lifts because they were “still buried under unprecedented amounts of snow.”
The IPCC has also been relentlessly hyping the snowless winter scare, along with gullible or agenda-driven politicians. In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, for example, the IPCC claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The year 2013, the last year for which complete data is available, featured the fourth-highest levels on record, according to data from Rutgers University’s Global Snow Lab. Spring snow cover was the highest in a decade, while data for the fall indicate that it was the fifth highest ever recorded. Last December, meanwhile, brought with it a new high record in Northern Hemisphere snow cover, Global Snow Lab data show.

thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry
 
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…”
We had this guy who worked for years with our CBS affiliate in Scranton, meteorologist Barry Finn. He openly challenged some of the “official” temperature “values” that were recorded that summer as being overblown, and he assumed they would change when officials realized their “mistake”. Then he outright said on several occasions that the whole global warming thing was a joke. He was soon replaced.
Do you think that other meteorologists got the message, that you must never challenged conventional “wisdom”? Most folks are easy to intimidate if their jobs are on the line! :o
 
Fiddling with data does not need to rise to the level of a conspiracy in order to establish that the whole global warming enterprise has become hopelessly corrupt and unscientific.

It is enough to recognize that the data has been fiddled with and tweaked. Why individuals and/or groups tweaked the data with bias are another question entirely.

The fact that the data was fiddled with is scandalous, and the scope of the scandal is global. Global warming has served as the science that has driven the politics of nations for decades now, and the fact is that the data has been tweaked with bias. No other scientific endeavor has driven the politics of so many nations as much as climate science, and there have been scientists who have had their thumbs on the scales.

They have had their thumbs on the scales.

If there has been a bigger scientific scandal than that, I am unaware of what it might be.
 
Fiddling with data does not need to rise to the level of a conspiracy in order to establish that the whole global warming enterprise has become hopelessly corrupt and unscientific.

It is enough to recognize that the data has been fiddled with and tweaked. Why individuals and/or groups tweaked the data with bias are another question entirely.

The fact that the data was fiddled with is scandalous, and the scope of the scandal is global. Global warming has served as the science that has driven the politics of nations for decades now, and the fact is that the data has been tweaked with bias. No other scientific endeavor has driven the politics of so many nations as much as climate science, and there have been scientists who have had their thumbs on the scales.

They have had their thumbs on the scales.

If there has been a bigger scientific scandal than that, I am unaware of what it might be.
The telling part is past data is always fiddled down, current data is always fiddled up.
 
LOL! It does not matter who can “process the facts” better, that is not a requirement for political discourse or voting…
That is the point I was trying to make. But posting the survey as evidence that global warming is wrong asks us to believe that skeptics can process the facts better.
 
That is the point I was trying to make. But posting the survey as evidence that global warming is wrong asks us to believe that skeptics can process the facts better.
Actually it shows that Skeptics base their skepticism more on facts than AGW supporters who appear to base their opinion on emotion.
 
The telling part is past data is always fiddled down, current data is always fiddled up.
I’ve seen this claimed by skeptics. But the only evidence for this claim that I have seen is several sites out of the thousands of sites used to gather surface temperature, and those several site were specially selected by a skeptic trying to make it look as bad as possible for global warming theory. Would you trust a global warming “alarmist” who made his point by cherry-picking station temperatures?
 
This is absolutely fascinating. A thoroughly reputable source too. The pictures of the polar bears just break my heart though. Simple as this may sound, I wonder what the truth actually is here. Is the earth warming or not. Crazy. If this proves to be some sort of engineered face-saving hoax, I will be furious, and I won’t be alone. (What would be the motivation for doctoring the numbers on the temperatures?)
Don’t worry about the polar bears. A Russian count showed their numbers had tripled from the seventies to the nineties. the period when the greatest warming had occurred. . The much publicised picture of the female and her cub on the ice floe, was taken 12 miles from land, in mid summer, and they were in no danger of drowning, because an adult polar bear can easily swim one hundred miles or more non-stop, and the cub easily half that. Moreover they can float indefinitely.

As to global warming in the first place, there has NEVERbeen a definitive experiment published that would show increased CO2 would increase the temperature. All their “evidence” has been produced on computer models. GIGO. The actual CO2 content of the atmosphere is .034%. That is 34 thousandths of one percent, or 340 parts per million. Imagine a warehouse 50 feet wide by 100 feet long by20 feet high, empty except for 1 carton measuring 30 inches by 30 inches by 30 inches to give you some perspective. Moreover there is speculation, that increased CO2 follows a warming period, not causes it.

As I stated earlier this all arose from a bunch of computer geeks fiddling with "computer models’ of the atmosphere. I realize that figures don’t lie, but I’m also painfully aware that liars can figure. :mad:
 
The actual CO2 content of the atmosphere is .034%. That is 34 thousandths of one percent, or 340 parts per million. Imagine a warehouse 50 feet wide by 100 feet long by20 feet high, empty except for 1 carton measuring 30 inches by 30 inches by 30 inches to give you some perspective.
That would be a totally irrelevant perspective, because the major components of the atmosphere - N2 and O2 - are transparent to infrared radiation. The fact that there is a lot of it makes no difference at all to the effectiveness of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. Take a look at this posting for a more informative perspective of the percentage of CO2.
 
As to global warming in the first place, there has NEVERbeen a definitive experiment published that would show increased CO2 would increase the temperature. All their “evidence” has been produced on computer models.
False. Read Arrhenius’ 1898 paper.

The effect has been predicted using pen and paper before any computer even existed.
 
That is the point I was trying to make. But posting the survey as evidence that global warming is wrong asks us to believe that skeptics can process the facts better.
The link in the post describes survey results that so-called AGW “skeptics” know as much or more than so-called AGW “believers” about the science. The posting of the survey article was a single url without comment. While it may have challenged you to acknowledged that “the other team” processes facts as well or better, but for the rest of “us,” it is more or less confirmation of what we already knew.
 
Real life:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And everyone’s favorite subject, travel costs:

http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/uncommon-ground/images-2011/PhD-Comics-2011-03-16.png

Also FYI, this is an actual instruction manual for grant money:

ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89556/financial_guidelines_en.pdf
 
That photo of the polar bear sitting on that tiny iceberg looking forlorn was also a giant hoax. Polar bears can SWIM! Some people here may wonder how conservative skeptics knew all along that anthropologic “global warming” was a pathetic hoax. Well, think of all the volcanoes and natural forest fires. The small amount of fossil fuel burned is a pittance compared to matural events. Also, ALL of atmospheric CO2 amounts to four molecules out of every TEN THOUSAND. But even without this evidence, we know that secular progressives don’t believe in right or wrong. Lies are no big deal; the agenda of world domination over the individual paeon is everything to them. Every new “scientific” finding just so happens to support pushes for more taxation and limitations on Western life, and more government control over us.
Know thine enemy, and you can ferret out the Truth quite easily most often. Brian Williams is, you guessed it, a PROGRESSIVE. How many millions of people foolishly trusted him during his decade-long tenure as NBC anchor? :rolleyes:
Brian Williams isn’t the only one. Most of the mainstream American media has been co-opted by the left. They are certainly in the pocket of the Democrats. The whole concept of Global Warming so suits their agenda, that I cannot help but think this was thought out well in advance. Remember Dan Rather and the falsified papers about G.W. The rest are no better. Every word out of their mouths clearly exalts Socialism or denigrates Conservatism or Free Enterprise. The patron saint of journalism Edward R. Murrow was himself a card carrying Wobbly.

Progressive is a code word for liberal, which is a code word for socialist, which actually means Communist. In Canada anymore, the government owned radio and t.v. network, C.B.C. stands for the Communist Broadcasting Corporation. Journalists are meant to report facts, not “make a difference” by colouring facts to suit their own viewpoint.
 
False. Read Arrhenius’ 1898 paper.

The effect has been predicted using pen and paper before any computer even existed.
I don’t think there is much doubt about the importance of Arrehenius’ work. Like Kepler, he relied on the observations of others to validate his empirical model. However, it was not an experiment per say. I will concede that humans are carrying out an experiment of sorts, but the experiment is not well understood, in that the independent, dependent and controlled variables are not known well enough to “know” what is happening, or what it means.
 
The link in the post describes survey results that so-called AGW “skeptics” know as much or more than so-called AGW “believers” about the science. The posting of the survey article was a single url without comment. While it may have challenged you to acknowledged that “the other team” processes facts as well or better, but for the rest of “us,” it is more or less confirmation of what we already knew.
You keep getting confused as to who the “teams” are. They are not me or you. They are the scientists. How knowledgeable non-scientists are may be a curiosity, but not relevant to the underlying scientific question.
 
weller,
While cute cartoons, University abuse of employees doesn’t mean they don’t play a game to receive the grants in the first place. There are plenty of articles discussing how the research funding model is broken.

And grad students do receive tuition on top of the small stipend.
Real life:

And everyone’s favorite subject, travel costs:

Also FYI, this is an actual instruction manual for grant money:

ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89556/financial_guidelines_en.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top