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

a reply to: grandmakdw

How the hell do you interpret that as a threat?

You made a BOGUS claim that a friend is a NASA scientist and has faced death threats for 'exposing' the AGW 'scam' or whatever you want to call. You did not back up that claim with any evidence.....


@bbrakern677,

Again, I am not sure why you keep posting on this threads, in the other one your 'scientific' claims have been proven to be false.

We continue to pump CO2 in the atmosphere and we continue to see CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere and oceans as a result.

Yet so many of you continue to act like the CO2 just naturally got there, that radiative forcing is a non-factor, that because CO2 is consumed by plants, more CO2 is a good things, ect...

Then when I or someone else makes a valid point, I get accused of not understanding science or just not intelligent enough to figure this out, or a red herring will get thrown out there and someone will rant about how the climate models are rigged therefore human induced climate change is somehow nothing but a scam because of this.

The reality is, only in the US we have this 'debate'. The rest of the industrialized world has accepted that climate change as a result of human activity is a reality.

a reply to: jrod

I can't back up my claim anymore than I have without putting him at further risk.

You said you had the power to check out my claim. Please do so.

It is not bogus.

a reply to: grandmakdw

You gave no information, just made the claim that is impossible to verify.

Perhaps you could say where he was working at, when this happened, what department you friend was working for, ect...NASA is huge.

Making a blanket claim like that just makes you lose credibility on here. It happens often on ATS. Keep playing dis-info game!

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: grandmakdw

You gave no information, just made the claim that is impossible to verify.

Perhaps you could say where he was working at, when this happened, what department you friend was working for, ect...NASA is huge.

Making a blanket claim like that just makes you lose credibility on here. It happens often on ATS. Keep playing dis-info game!

You claimed you had the capability to check it out with just the information I put on the thread.

I AM NOT going to put him at risk just to satisfy your curiosity. You do what you claimed you could do, check it out yourself. I'm giving you the go ahead to prove me wrong, but you won't be able to because I am not lying.

Can you prove you are not a sock puppet for John Kerry and the elitists who want to extort money in the form of carbon credits? If you want to trace down everyone who disagrees with you, as you stated in another thread. Start with a little transparency yourself.

You can disagree with people all you want on ATS, you can disbelieve anyone on ATS you choose to disbelieve.
You can NOT demand information that will put lives at risk.
You should NOT assert that just because you disagree with people they must be dis-info agents,
that sounds a bit like someone who is a dis-info agent trying to get the light off their back.
Don't accuse what you aren't willing to give up yourself, locations, jobs, etc. Especially if people say others could be hurt just because of your curiosity.

I KNOW that data has been manipulated and have known it for years, because of the people I know. I won't believe you, so what? I can not believe you if I want to. You can not believe me if you don't want to. That doesn't make either of us dis-info agents. Grow up and get over being so sensitive when people don't agree with you.

From a layman's point of view on the subject, is climate change happening, l don't know. However, the only question l have is, if we continue to destroy our habitat with pollution, air, water, and land, and degrade our environment by cutting down trees that provide sanctuary for animals, which in turn creates extinction of species, how long will this damage take to have a toll on humans beings.

Does having less trees contribute to the rise in carbon dioxide?

What would happen if we had no trees?

originally posted by: Daedal
From a layman's point of view on the subject, is climate change happening, l don't know. However, the only question l have is, if we continue to destroy our habitat with pollution, air, water, and land, and degrade our environment by cutting down trees that provide sanctuary for animals, which in turn creates extinction of species, how long will this damage take to have a toll on humans beings.

Does having less trees contribute to the rise in carbon dioxide?

What would happen if we had no trees?

Do a little research, there are more trees today than in the past in the USA. That is a myth.

In the US, the air and water are much much much cleaner than when I was a child. That is also a myth.

It is true in China, and we in the US who have done a magnificant job of clean up are being made to pay for what China is doing.

People are being spied on with smart meters in their homes because of China, unreal

Money is going to the elitists in the form of carbon credits, when the US is cleaner than ever, and the little people are the ones who end up giving carbon credit extortion money to the elitists because of China.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Surely there are less trees in the US than the past, l guess it depends on how far back you look. I heard at one time a squirrel could cross the US in trees alone, perhaps a myth as well, idk.

Thanks for the reply.

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

Remember this quote when your talking about climate change.

Mencken

The second it when mainstream it ceased being about the science.

Then it started being all about agenda, and here comes big government to save you.

originally posted by: neo96

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

Remember this quote when your talking about climate change.

Mencken

The second it when mainstream it ceased being about the science.

Then it started being all about agenda, and here comes big government to save you.

Bravo!!

Exactly, it is about manipulating data to control the masses through big government
and to line the pockets of the elite through
carbon credits that mostly take money out of the poor and middle class.

The big lies the government tells to control the masses
are huge
and the big lies to get money into the hands of the elite
are mind boggling
Worst of all, people fall for it and even call for
(demand due to disinformation) the very actions
that tighten the control of big government over the lives of the people;
in order to give the government total control over even the smallest actions
of people, to keep them in line;
and to keep funneling money to the political class and the elite class.

a reply to: grandmakdw

True enough. Rome fiddled while Nero burned.

I am no expert by any means on this subject. As with most important and highly politicized issues facing not just one region, but the entire world - It does seem almost impossible at times to find true north. There are so many seemingly educated and valid points on both sides that you inevitably get lost. Being pulled one way and then the other while trying to wave away the fog of passionate opinion. So, in these instances -I have to listen to my heart, and my heart asks some very good questions. Questions like, why would someone like David Suzuki lie to us all? He's a brilliant and compassionate man that has spent a grassroots lifetime building the respect and trust of the people through science. The man is now 78 years old. Why would he finish his legacy off with a lie? Why? He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. He would destroy everything he worked for in life, and in death leave his children and grandchildren to answer for it. There is a Vice Documentary called 40 years of complete isolation www.youtube.com... (He moved there in 1965 so it would be 50 now) where a modern day "Gaucho", Chile's version of the lone cowboy lives in a remote region completely alone. He only has a radio and get's the paper delivered once a month by a boat, but he knows and relies on the land so much that it's a part of him. He speaks about the changes he see's in the region that has surrounded him most of his long life. Drastic changes. What does he have to gain by lying to us? I would love to see anyone challenge what he has seen.

a reply to: tasteslikethunder

Are you kidding ??

Anyone who gets ANY belief solidly enshrouded in his mind will continue parroting it and making money from it.

This guy was saying things for YEARS that made a lot of people mad, the thing is he wants us to believe in his vision of the world, and he loves to chant the mantras that HUMANS are the worst plight around, and that nothing else is at fault.

Getting pretty tired of all of us being lumped together just like in the BIBLE, lets all get down on our knees and beg for forgiveness for things we do not , have not had, and NEVER WILL HAVE, control over the majority of INDUSTRY on this planet....

But...am I to believe that thousands of scientists, scientific papers, scientific organizations and associations are wrong

Just a question. Do all these scientists deploy their own global monitoring equipment and sensors or do they all get their data from the same sources, sources that seem to have manipulated the data?

If they all are using manipulated data doesn't it negate the consensus of the "thousands of scientists" we keep hearing about?

a reply to: Primordial
The data which is used is raw data from established weather monitoring stations. There are various methods used by various groups to determine trends from the raw data.

As has been pointed out, it is the nature of many weather monitoring stations to have built in biases in their raw data. Some stations may read consistently high, some may read consistently low. Over the past 100 years instruments have changed as have the way observations are made (such as the time of day). In order to make sense of these things statistical adjustments are made to the data. These corrections sometimes result in lower temperatures than the raw data shows and sometimes result in higher temperatures. Stations that read low, still show an increasing trend. Stations that read high, still show an increasing trend. While the adjusted data shows a slightly greater increase, both the raw data and the adjusted data show the trend.

If they all are using manipulated data doesn't it negate the consensus of the "thousands of scientists" we keep hearing about?

No. Because the raw data also shows the trend of increasing temperatures.

Here is a demonstration of the differences between the raw data and the adjusted data.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

But, if the OP is true then this is wrong. The OP claims that cooling trends were adjusted to show warming trends. Not just adjusted warmER but from cooling to warming.

In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

a reply to: Primordial

But, if the OP is true then this is wrong.

Or, to put it another way, the OP is wrong.

three weather stations

That's three. Out of thousands. That is called cherry picking data. You may want to read this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



You really don't think the world is getting warmer?

a reply to: grandmakdw

Yes exactly and bravo to you as well.
Basically it is one of the many 'divide and conquer' mechanisms they use. Make us fight each other when we should be fighting them - the rich/the establishment - to make this world a better place rather than the artificial, GMO filled, lousy addictive television world full of obese people that it is becoming.

Here is another great article

Periods of warming and cooling are natural processes
that last far longer than the meager perspective of one
human life-time. And it is an irrefutable fact that humans
are contributing to this effect.

But the question is...to what degree?

We humans pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and
are actively replacing the earth's co2 scrubbing flora with
with concrete and steel. It is a double threat to our environment
that will one day create an envronment that is very hard for us to
survive in.

The real culprit is our exponentially growing population. But very
few are willing to discuss that.

a reply to: rival

The real culprit is our exponentially growing population. But very
few are willing to discuss that.

Actually they do. But around here it turns from slowing population growth into killing people.

a reply to: Phage

Not just three.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken.

It's been getting warmer since the last ice age. That's not the question. The question is how fast is the current trend and are we accelerating it.

It's hard to tell when the data is "adjusted" because ...

Over the past 100 years instruments have changed as have the way observations are made (such as the time of day).

Recording temperature is not too difficult. Can we not get accurate equipment and just record the temperature at the same time it's always been? And according to the OP they aren't just adjusting for bias but changing the outcome.

ps. You can post all the charts you want, if the data is incorrect they are unreliable. My original point.