H
Hans_W
Guest
That would certainly be an example of a “sceptic” who has no idea about the science.
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
- Status
S
sps49
Guest
Really? Perhaps you would prefer to have the discussion limited to “The Scientists,” but those days are over. Now you must deal with the ultimate reality of the situation. I may be amused, but certainly not confused. If I were you, I would settle in for the long haul.
W
weller2
Guest
It has been definitely determined by the independent review (BEST) that the experiment coincided increase of planetary temperature by 0.6C between 1750 and 2000 (and massive ice melt after 2000). Do you think it is prudent to further continue this experiment?
W
weller2
Guest
The fact that X suits Y’s agenda does not necessarily mean that Y fabricated X.
Otherwise, we would be forced to conclude that humans have fabricated the Sun.
W
weller2
Guest
Oh sure.
However a graphic describing researchers as fat pigs over a pile of money is not only offensive but downright wrong.
I’ve posted an actual funding manual, have fun reading what is a “direct eligible cost” and what is not.
W
weller2
Guest
Dismissing something because you think that concentration is low can be dangerous.
Arsenic will kill you when you have 13 ppm in your body.
S
sps49
Guest
The BEST team applied a lot of talent into the surface temperature record. They used physicists and statisticians in their analysis, and even applied ideas from skeptics to improve their algorithm. That being said, the weakness in the surface temperature data set is the oceans. This is not meant to be disparaging of the effort, but it does serve to remind us that much work is left to be done.
The attribution argument is still in play, and will be until those variables I mentioned earlier are nailed down in this “experiment.” I think it is prudent to be very, very careful in changing policies which affect the primary energy source of our society without having the attribution argument sorted out.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
That’s what real climate scientists have been saying ALL ALONG. Completely accurate prediction. Skeptics, however, have not been paying attention to real climate science, but only to what FoxNews, unenlightened & misguided weathermen, and tabloid newspapers have been saying that climate science is…
Let me start from the beginning. Lesson one: warmer atmosphere holds MORE water vapor, while drying out and desiccating land and plants and people, esp in already drought-prone areas.
Water vapor comes down as precipitation. It can come down as rain in warmer areas – flooding out people, even drought areas – and as (drum-roll) SNOW in colder areas & during colder seasons – causing blizzards.
That part has always been a projection of climate scientists.
What is cutting-edge, however, and not predicted (except by me, who moved to the RGV near Mexico in 2002, delighting in our winter veggie garden, got this niggling feeling one day and thought, “I’ll bet instead of getting fewer killing freezes here that wipes out our winter veggie garden, somehow AGW is going to cause us more killing freezes.”
Unfortunate that prediction seems to be panning out.
See “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…”
T
Theo520
Guest
Climate Change and the Death of Science
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
R
Retread_Mick
Guest
I think not. The sun is there plainly evident for everyone to see. However a scientific myth can be fabricated, and foisted off on the gullible. Go ahead folks, drink the Kool Aid.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
He should have gone to the Koch bros – they would have gladly funded his research – as they did the BEST (Berkeley) research, which unfortunately for the Koch bros did NOT find AGW to be a hoax, as the researcher, Richard Muller, had promised.
Like I said there are many ways to accomplishing things. One can swelter in the dark, or go solar and become energy efficient.
The skeptics keep on thinking the only way climb up the ladder is upside down…like Hopi clowns
L
lynnvinc
Guest
It’s called “selection bias” in science, or “cherry-picking.” The skeptics have made a big fat cherry pie out of an issue that will cause many poor people to starve to death.It’s not a big lie, it is only a small one. You can believe us.
Now that, my friend, is “fiddling with temp data” while the world burns.
J
john_ennis
Guest
I have to admit, talking to educated fellow high school teachers as well as a variety of students over the years, those who know about the state of antarctic ice as well as arctic ice, were essentially always skeptical about the most dire predictions commonly reported in the press.
Same with being familiar with the actual surface temperatures of the last two decades, as compared to the predicted Hockey Stick. The more green they claim to be, the less they were aware of such facts.
Peace.
John
S
sps49
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_EarthHe should have gone to the Koch bros – they would have gladly funded his research – as they did the BEST (Berkeley) research, which unfortunately for the Koch bros did NOT find AGW to be a hoax, as the researcher, Richard Muller, had promised.
Like I said there are many ways to accomplishing things. One can swelter in the dark, or go solar and become energy efficient.
The skeptics keep on thinking the only way climb up the ladder is upside down…like Hopi clowns
“Berkeley Earth has been funded by unrestricted educational grants totaling (as of December 2013) about $1,394,500.[3] Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER),[4] and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how Berkeley Earth conducts the research or what they publish.[6]”
Berkeley Earth did not have the mission to prove or disprove AGW. It’s task was to independently look at the surface temperature instrument record. It is another piece in the puzzle, not the silver bullet you may have been hoping for. The attribution question and debate still persists, which should be good news for you.
T
Theo520
Guest
John, when talking about the ice, it’s also good to look at the underlying temperature trends, which are often ignored for sensational ice fluctuations. The good news is there has been no warming at the South Pole in over three decades, in marked contrast to the increasing CO2 levels.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb07d914b2970d-750wi
T
Theo520
Guest
Yes, BEST was an outgrowth of the scandal with the ‘homogenization’ of the surface dataset. BEST delivered an ‘open source’ approach where the data was readily available to researchers and there were no secrets on how the data was massaged.
Right or wrong, at least a discussion could be had.
But to take this noble academic pursuit and call them AGW SKEPTICS is a complete distortion of events. Somewhere I have a great quote of Mueller applauding Gore’s alarmism and fact distortion, indicating the ends justify the means (spoken like a true Warmist Alarmist).
Right or wrong, at least a discussion could be had.
But to take this noble academic pursuit and call them AGW SKEPTICS is a complete distortion of events. Somewhere I have a great quote of Mueller applauding Gore’s alarmism and fact distortion, indicating the ends justify the means (spoken like a true Warmist Alarmist).
S
sps49
Guest
The work being performed at BEST has its place in the pursuit of causes and conditions, but is not itself the answer. Richard Mueller has personal opinions about AGW which have changed, but evidently people change opinions all the time.
R
Retread_Mick
Guest
Cute, but arsenic is an active poison. CO2 is an inert gas. If one were to study the law of the conservation of energy, they would realize that the simple passing of radiated heat energy through an inert gas would not amplify the heat. In order to increase the heat energy a supplementary source of heat energy or an increase of heat energy at the source would be required. There is no free lunch. If there is an increase in sun activity, sun spots, solar flares etc. it will be warmer. A decrease will bring cooler weather. It’s that simple. If you’re going to combat global warming, you’d better figure out how to put a thermostat on the sun.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, a consensus among scientists supporting the theory of manmade global warming. In fact there has been a goodly number, who supported it early on, who have deserted the cause. The problem is that the unreliable mainstream media refuses to report these facts, or any other information that would belie the hoax. Remember Brian Williams? All too often I hear the accusation of “too much Fox News”, when the real problem is too many rely on the mainstream when they should be watching Fox.
Lets take a look at the number one proponent of Climate Change, which is merely an alias of the real criminal, Global Warming, (the name was changed to confuse the gullible,) Al Gore and his fantasy flic. A court in England ruled that since there were seven, count ‘em, seven outright lies, the film could not be shown in classrooms unless these lies were identified and refuted. Shortly after that it was discovered, that the opening scenes were computer generated, shamelessly stolen from the movie The Day After Tomorrow. I put it to you, that if someone has to lie, to make his point, he has no point to make in the first place. In Tennessee the records of the energy companies are open to the public, and they show that Gores’ energy consumption, for one month, is equal to that of a normal household for a year. Gore, himself, refused to comment on this fact, but his spokesman assured everyone “that since Mister Gore purchased carbon credits, he was leaving no carbon footprint.” Well who did he purchase them from? Why himself of course. He’s so proud to be of service to you in this crisis, that he’ll even sell them to you. If you’re gullible enough to buy them that is. Wake up you sheeple. You’re being sheared.
How many of you know that in 2007 Irena Sendler, who was responsible for the rescue of 2500 Jewish babies and children from the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, was passed over for the Nobel Peace Prize, so that they could present it to this conniving buffoon for his Inconvenient [Un] Truth.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
T
Theo520
Guest
This blog article gives an unusual explanation for the PAUSE.
First image show the raw vs adjusted temps
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Next image shows the amount of adjustment. Self evident is a cooling bias to past temperatures with the adjustments slowly removed starting in the 1970s. Such adjustments clearly accentuate the the illusion of dramatic global warming in recent times.
Since it’s a blog post and not a paper, I’ll be monitoring the comments section as people dig into the content. I admit it appears as ‘tin foil’ hat material.
First image show the raw vs adjusted temps
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Next image shows the amount of adjustment. Self evident is a cooling bias to past temperatures with the adjustments slowly removed starting in the 1970s. Such adjustments clearly accentuate the the illusion of dramatic global warming in recent times.
Since it’s a blog post and not a paper, I’ll be monitoring the comments section as people dig into the content. I admit it appears as ‘tin foil’ hat material.
- Status