8 replies to this topic

[nimblebear]

Don't know how many times I've said it here at this site, but hopefully, and finally we can just put the nail in the coffin on this.

Pretty much has wrecked quite a few economies, including that of the U.S. nearly all EPA regulations in the past decade have emaninated in one form or another, from this scandal, which is based on entirely fabricated and rigged data.

http://www.telegraph...andal-ever.html

The hysteria and alarmism has completely undermined anything that could possibly be beneficial to the world economic growth, and as such, much of the world's corporations CEOS are grappling with so much uncertainty this has caused, that many have pulled back completely on viable long term commitments to R&D. This has more to do with stock buy backs than anything else, because if they weren't so utterly worried by the compound effects of government regulations again mostly from the EPA, and inevitable lawsuits, they'd be plowing the money that would otherwise be buying their own stocks back, and putting in into R&D and investing for a true future. It's gotten to the point, where here in America, people who look at long term planning have no clue if there will be enough electricity, as the EPA is gutting nearly every viable coal fired power plant that is in operation, by using such onerous regulations (many driven by the premise of global warming), making it next to impossible to operate utility plants running on coal without losing their shirts. What society doesn't understand, is that you can't simply replace these base load coal plants with wind, or solar, or even natural gas fired power plants, bc none of that would be close to the cost effective way that coal is mined and then used for power, and these plants are so huge, that it would take years to build enough new power to replace them. Besides that the country is broke, and can't even afford to build new replacements for this much power.

[dougie]

yeah one global warming denilaist writes an editorial and we are too listen?

[gorydog]

Argue if you must about what percentage of global warming is anthropogenic or what interdictions will be necessary. No one denies those are controversial points. However, to claim global warming and climate change are not happening indicates you have not really looked at or understood the data. Not someones opinion truthy summary of the data, but the actual numbers. I have a science background and this is simply not debated anymore. It is has been proven to be the case that the earth is warming overall and is at least somewhat from man.

Edited by gorydog, 09 February 2015 - 12:10 PM.

[brucekeller]

Argue if you must about what percentage of global warming is anthropogenic or what interdictions will be necessary. No one denies those are controversial points. However, to claim global warming and climate change are not happening indicates you have not really looked at or understood the data. Not someones opinion truthy summary of the data, but the actual numbers. I have a science background and this is simply not debated anymore. It is has been proven to be the case that the earth is warming overall and is at least somewhat from man.

Then why did they have to fudge the numbers so bad anyways? Just doesn't make a lot of sense.

[nimblebear]

Argue if you must about what percentage of global warming is anthropogenic or what interdictions will be necessary. No one denies those are controversial points. However, to claim global warming and climate change are not happening indicates you have not really looked at or understood the data. Not someones opinion truthy summary of the data, but the actual numbers. I have a science background and this is simply not debated anymore. It is has been proven to be the case that the earth is warming overall and is at least somewhat from man.

So not only is the data heavily manipulated, but for the past 30 years global mean temps have actually been decreasing. This is one of many reports, and so it's not just one report. Go back through history of millions of years, and the planet has had far greater swings in temps than what's being fabricated, and even more the documented forestation has increased correponding to any increases in GHG, such that the carbon sink effect of the worldwide plant growth, has all but offset any non fabricated increase in carbon.

One day, you'll look back at this cruel hoax as just one more y2k hand waving ridiculous hysterics, brought about by a very evil agenda of unwitting yet complicit accidental "scientists" who happened to need a job, like the rest of us do, and happen to have PHD's that aren't worth diddly squat in today's world of so few jobs, and way too many wrongly qualified people to OT fill them. Convenient for those with an agenda, and even more convenient for scientists who need paid work.

[salsabob]

Argue if you must about what percentage of global warming is anthropogenic or what interdictions will be necessary. No one denies those are controversial points. However, to claim global warming and climate change are not happening indicates you have not really looked at or understood the data. Not someones opinion truthy summary of the data, but the actual numbers. I have a science background and this is simply not debated anymore. It is has been proven to be the case that the earth is warming overall and is at least somewhat from man.

Then why did they have to fudge the numbers so bad anyways? Just doesn't make a lot of sense.

First, it begins with you - turn your brain on.

Next, read something for people with their brains turned on -

http://www.slate.com...asurements.html

No, Adjusting Temperature Measurements Is Not a Scandal

The latest salvo in the War on Reality comes from the UK paper The Telegraph, which is a safe haven for some who would claim—literally despite the evidence—that global warming isn’t real.

The article, written by Christopher Booker (who flat out denies human-induced global warming), is somewhat subtly titled “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever”. In it, Booker claims that climate scientists have adjusted temperature readings from thermometers in Paraguay to make it look like the temperature is increasing, when the measurements off the detectors actually show the opposite. The theme of the article is that scientists “manipulated” the data on purpose to exaggerate global warming.

This is nonsense. The claim is wrong. The scientists didn’t manipulate the data, they processed it. That’s a very different thing. And the reason they do it isn’t hard to understand.

Imagine you want to measure the daily temperature in a field near a town. You want to make sure the measurements you get aren’t affected by whether it’s cloudy or sunny—direct sunlight on the thermometer will increase the temperature you measure—so you set it up in a reflective box. Look: Right away you’ve adjusted the temperature, even before you’ve taken a measurement! You’ve made sure an outside influence doesn’t affect your data adversely. That’s a good thing.

So you start reading the data, but over time someone buys the property near the field, and builds houses there. Driveways, roads, houses leaking heat… this all affects your thermometer. Perhaps a building is erected that casts a shadow over your location. Whatever: You have to account for all these effects.

That’s what scientists do. That’s what scientists did. They examined the data from these thermometers all over the world, and tried to minimize the impact of outside influences. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be able to trust the data.

How you correct the data is important, of course, and this is where the second claim comes in: Scientists manipulated the data specifically to make it look like global warming is stronger than it really is.

Ah, but we know that’s not true! A few years ago, an independent group at Berkeley took that same temperature data and re-examined it, processing it in a different way. Guess what they found?

Yup. The planet’s warming up, and pretty much just as the other scientists had said. You can read more about this in an excellent article by Neville Nicholls, who is an expert in how meteorological measurements need to be adjusted in this way. There’s more at “…and then there’s Physics” blog and at Real Sceptic, and Skeptical Science has an article debunking this as well.

A graph is worth a thousand words. Here are the results of the Berkeley research compared to various other groups:

[see link for graph]

As you can see, there’s virtually no difference. As long as the measurements are processed properly they show what we know, what we’ve known, for quite some time: The world is warming up, and it’s warming up rapidly.

So, far from being “the biggest science scandal ever”, this isn’t even a scandal at all, and is in fact how science works. You can’t just take raw data off a detector and claim it’s real; if you do so then at best you’d be fooling yourself, and at worst you’d be trying to fool others. And that’s certainly not how science works.

And regarding the reference to the Berkeley (BEST) Project, here's what the project leader, former skeptic, Dr. Mueller, PhD, had to say in the NYT -

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

Here's the thing, Bruce - there's a lot of old dudes around that are angry that their Ayn Rand fantasies haven't played out so everything has become a govt conspiracy. Eventually, they'll be gone and a lot of good things are going to become possible. In the interim, my advice is to just stop listening to them.

Edited by salsabob, 10 February 2015 - 10:29 AM.

[stocks]

NASA Has Doubled 1880-1980 Warming Through Successive Data Alterations

NASA has repeatedly altered global temperature data, causing a net doubling of 1880-1980 global warming since their 1981 version. Pre-1965 years keep getting colder, and post-1965 years keep getting warmer.



https://stevengoddar...ta-alterations/

[Rogerdodger]

RULES OF OF GLOBAL ALARMISM: RULE #1. Use derogatory terms and name calling rather than reality. * "fantasies" * "govt conspiracy" * "read something for people with their brains turned on" * "skeptics" * "flat earthers" RULE #2: * Blame the "KROTCH" brothers or Ayn Rand. RULE #3: * Blame FAUX news. RULE #4: * Site examples of hot weather... unless it's cold. RULE #5: (And this is essential) * Never mention that the climate has been changing since the origin of the universe. * Never refer to the millenniums of historical information. * Refer only to the changes since the Little Ice Age ended. No facts needed or called for.

[Rogerdodger]

Obama's Harvard professor likened the president's climate change policies to 'burning the Constitution'

A Harvard professor who taught U.S. President Barack Obama torched his prized pupil last month on Capitol Hill.Constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe, who also served in the Justice Department under Obama, testified last month during a House hearing that the president's climate change policies are similar to "burning the Constitution."
The 73-year-old Tribe argued that the Environmental Protection Agency is grossly overstepping its boundaries in respect to enforcing the president's doctrine. One conservative operative called the remarks "dazzling."
"EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta: usurping the prerogatives of the States, Congress and the Federal Courts — all at once," Tribe insisted. "Burning the Constitution should not become part of our national energy policy."

But of course, now this highly heralded Obama supporter is seeing the Global Warming Alarmist rulebook being unleashed as usual:
Namely personal attacks and being called a shill for Big Oil or the Krotch Brothers or Faux News.

Meanwhile the Greenies have only a pure, non-monetary motive.
Yeah right.

The man behind the Keystone pipeline delay is billionaire hedge-fund manager Tom Steyer, who is a radical green and has promised the Democrats $100 million this election season if they do his bidding. And so Obama is doing just that.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 07 April 2015 - 04:02 PM.