MSM reports: The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

a reply to: Phage

How do you know?

Because it is what the sheeple need to hear to keep them placated and mindless.

That is what Government is all about.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Because it is what the sheeple need to hear to keep them placated and mindless.

I'm neither mindless or placated.

Tell me, what do you base your ideas about climate on. Hunches? A hunch that interglacials last 10,000 years? A hunch that it's been steadily warming for 25,000?

a reply to: Phage

Tell me, what do you base your ideas about climate on. Hunches? A hunch that interglacials last 10,000 years? A hunch that it's been steadily warming for 25,000?

So what, you are out of arguments so you revert to insults.

I thought you were better than that Phage.

I research these things and have been since before this global warming, global cooling, climate change political BS started.

I have watched the political BS play out over and over and over again. It is all part of keeping the masses away from the real truth.

What part do you play.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

So what, you are out of arguments so you revert to insults.

What insults? I asked you questions about how you arrive at your ideas. Since you don't believe scientists, I had to wonder. It seems your argument is "scientists lie."

I research these things and have been since before this global warming, global cooling, climate change political BS started.

How did you do this research? What were your sources?

a reply to: Phage

The graph you present is very interesting. May I ask where it came from? Or rather, lol, would you please disclose the source?

a reply to: bbracken677

Haha, how funny you are. It looks like a duck ! 'huh huh'!

Are you really that daft that you think this is some weekly fun thing ? You are that arrogant knowing ALL the facts, and you can laugh at the ones who do not know the facts you do ?

What if you are wrong ? - consider that - after all it is a conspiracy site.

And you know burning stuff that took 200 million years to form, in 200 years, is not ever gonna have an impact on current weather. I guess thats why they removed lead from gasoline in the past, for fun ... my show is on!

originally posted by: Phage

I research these things and have been since before this global warming, global cooling, climate change political BS started.

How did you do this research? What were your sources?

I just cannot wait for the answer myself! -- pheonix ??

Crystal balls ?

a reply to: kloejen

WTF are you talking about?

I expressed an interest in the graph's source in order to learn. Contrary to many, I do maintain an open mind, I think for myself and I do not automatically parrot crap from a blog. You will never see me list a blog site as a source. At least, not in a discussion involving science. Phage and I may not fully agree on a few subjects, I have agreed with him on more occasions than not. I have great respect for him.
There is no "gotcha" planned regarding the source of the graph, and the graph does not tell me anything I do not already know, however, the presentation of the data in the graph I have never seen together. It is the addition of the Milankovitch cycle that particularly interests me. I have been doing much more reading than typing the last week or so. Ergo, I am interested in the source based only on intellectual interest.

Your rampage in words does nothing positive for you. Your post contributed nothing but emotion to the discussion. Useless and counterproductve.

a reply to: bbracken677

The graph came from here:
www.skepticalscience.com...


I believe the orbital insolation data was obtained from here:
www1.ncdc.noaa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

Thanks!

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

When thinking about all of this...what comes to my mind is (Nikola Tesla).

Interesting Link: home.earthlink.net...

a reply to: bbracken677

You are right. I responded emotionally and went out of line. I'm sorry.

Every time there is a small change in the data (usually due to summer/winter), there is the usual suspects pointing fingers, and yelling "look! i told you they cheat with the data!".

This time scientists have made adjustments to some of the data.

Palmer, Feb. 10: I think it might be a matter of the report that came out last week about the government manipulating data and misleading people a little bit. But two feet of snow ought to get their attention. … It’s not the first time. I mean, I wrote about this a couple of years ago, when it came out that the scientists at East Anglia University in England had done this, and that was the data that the United Nations report was based on. It was a huge scandal, there were emails going around where they were, the scientists were literally talking about how they were going to change the data. We are building an entire agenda on falsified data that will have an enormous impact on the economy.

The “report” to which Palmer referred was actually a series of blog posts, written by climate change denier Paul Homewood, which were then highly publicized in two stories by Christopher Booker in the Daily Telegraph in London. Both writers focused on the adjustments made to temperature readings at certain monitoring stations around the world, and claimed that those adjustments throw the entire science of global warming into question. This is not at all the case, and those adjustments are a normal and important part of climate science.

Why the adjustments ?

Q: What are some of the temperature discrepancies you found in the climate record and how have you compensated for them?

Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections.

Spreading misinformation

Scientists have criticized the Telegraph’s Booker (and by extension Homewood) for spreading misinformation on climate science. In a post on RealClimate.org, Norwegian Meteorological Institute senior researcher Rasmus Benestad quickly debunked the details of Booker’s and Homewood’s claims. He said of the Telegraph story, “a person who writes such a misleading story shows little respect for his readers.”

Full source

The proposed solutions by politicians are what is scaring people. Politicians are saying the same crap over and over again "throw money at the problem, and it will go away!".

The problem is real, the solution is not...

Ohh and look far away from this NASA fact



its just an illusion....

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: mbkennel

3.5C cold meant that there were glaciers more than A MILE THICK in New York. Humanity was a few bands of scraggly hunter-gatherers. You think that 3.5C in the other direction won't be really disruptive and negative? And happening so fast?

You just don't get it.

Look at the whole graph!

As we have countless times before, we are heading for an ice age.

It is due.

Yes, in the absence of external human influence we would be heading into an ice age in about 50,000 years or so according to some computations.

However, there is something different now which did not exist during the entire x-axis of that chart, namely long sequestered carbon (put in the ground way way way way to the left, far earlier in prehistory) now in the atmosphere as a result of human activity. Look at the faster chart---there is a sudden spike up after industrial period started.

So, if something is different from prehistory, then something different will happen.

There is nothing "due", other than getting the consequences of the laws of physics, which is what we will always get.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

originally posted by: xuenchen

Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants.

More CO2 in the air means more plant growth

Not much help when we are chopping down more trees then we are planting.

Despite decreased deforestation rates in some regions, forest ecosystems are still under great threat. According to WRI research, 30 percent of global forest cover has been cleared, while another 20 percent has been degraded. Most of the rest has been fragmented, leaving only about 15 percent intact.

World resources institute

Most of those forests have been transformed into urban development and grazing grounds so there is no little chance of reforestation.

Co2 might promote plant growth, but you need space for those plants to thrive and we are running out of space.

Hahaha. Most of the forest in the us was once cleared for farmland. Btw, north America more forested now than ever in recorded history.

It's more forested now because we are using fossil fuels as primary energy source instead of wood.

By the way, this point should be instructive, even in the 18th and 19th century, human influence was quite sufficiently potent to change the ecology and land use of a continent. Today, there are many more people and we're more powerful.

So why do people think it's "arrogant" to believe that humans can change the climate, when there is a specific physical mechanism and proven experimental observations that we're doing so?

CO2 Is a joke. It's on us. Most Of The C02 on earth is dissolved in the oceans. Raising the temperature of the oceans even a fraction of a degree releases more C02 than man could hope to if he were trying.

If that's so, then it's extremely worrisome because the ocean temperatures are barreling straight up! Global warming could get much worse, faster. Even more reason to not take the risk.