Climate change expert sentenced to 32 months for fraud

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: beezzer

What part of human induced climate change is questionable?

Using google earth one can see great changes man has made on this planet. We also have observed changes in the chemistry of the oceans and atmosphere as a result of our activity.

To say we are not causing the climate to change is truly blind.

One of the problems is the data. There just isn't enough data for me to make a determination. I've only a background in science with a strong background in statistical analysis.

So until I see conclusive data over periods longer than reported, I'm going to remain skeptical.

The other issue I have is with the proponents.

We can find a person armed with a Youtube video claiming that the Moon landings never occured. And people will say, "Plausable".

But be a skeptic on climate-man-made-change? You're branded a heritic because you don't believe. Or called names like idiot and stupid.

Discussing climate change with a true believer is harder than having a bacon sandwich with a member of ISIS.

originally posted by: poncho1982
I'll just put this out there.

www.nbcnews.com...

If he lied about working for the CIA to serve his personal greed, who's to say he doesn't lie about his "science" to do the same?

That's easy. We check what he says about science with what other scientists say about science. Since he wasn't doing any work anyway, obviously he wasn't saying very much about science to begin with.

And obviously he is a mentally ill fool, and ignorant about the CIA. If he were actually being sent overseas by the CIA he'd either have official cover, in which case he would say "I have a State Department contract", and State Department would pay him and give him a passport, or the more dangerous non-official cover, in which case he would say, "I've been hired by an mining and environmental research consulting company for overseas assignments", and they would pay him 1099's.

a reply to: beezzer

Too many whistle-blowers have come forward stating that data has been falsified.

You're talking out of your bunny tail there. Not only has there been no whistle-blowers, the data has never been falsified.

originally posted by: beezzer

But be a skeptic on climate-man-made-change? You're branded a heritic because you don't believe. Or called names like idiot and stupid.

You can start being skeptical but open to convincing by people who know more science than you do. If you then continue to ignore actual scientific explanations and the enormous backing of observational and theoretical analysis, then yes you deserve what you get.

Discussing climate change with a true believer is harder than having a bacon sandwich with a member of ISIS.

Try discussing cardiology with the head of the department at the Cleveland Clinic when you are a skeptic that hearts are relevant to blood pressure; especially after he or she tells you all the well-known reasons why and you reply that you don't buy them because of greedy doctors and pharmaceutical companies are perpetrating a hoax to sicken us all.

We can find a person armed with a Youtube video claiming that the Moon landings never occured. And people will say, "Plausable".

Good analogy. Global warming deniers have as much scientific factual validity as Apollo program deniers.

a reply to: Kali74

It feels hopeless often when I read this threads. With the information we have today it is absurd for an intelligent person to continue denying our role in changing our planet's climate.

I know I am not going to win anyone who denies man's role in climate change over when they refuse to actually look at the data and the information available.

It is sad that so many will turn this into a debate that brings in politics and appeals to emotion rather than the actual data that we are observing.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Kali74

It feels hopeless often when I read this threads. With the information we have today it is absurd for an intelligent person to continue denying our role in changing our planet's climate.

I know I am not going to win anyone who denies man's role in climate change over when they refuse to actually look at the data and the information available.

The goal is to give resources to the silent lurkers who are not blind denialists, so they can learn more science for themselves, as well as recognize the dangerously illogical and paranoid rhetoric of the unscientific.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Too many whistle-blowers have come forward stating that data has been falsified.

You're talking out of your bunny tail there. Not only has there been no whistle-blowers, the data has never been falsified.

And in fact, a prior skeptic, Richard Mueller of the Berkeley Earth project did more than just spout skeptical platitudes, but engaged in a serious and complete re-analysis of multiple raw data sources independent of the climatology community. He put his money (literally), where his mouth was.

He found: the climatologists were right, and moreover the data strongly suggest human influence is the most important driver in the current period.

a reply to: mbkennel

Indeed. Unfortunately he was a loudmouthed denier prior to that... afterward deniers had no need to listen to him. I bet they still loosely quote him though and don't even realize it.

originally posted by: poncho1982
I'll just put this out there.

www.nbcnews.com...

If he lied about working for the CIA to serve his personal greed, who's to say he doesn't lie about his "science" to do the same?

I'm losing trust in the scientific community. It's not what it used to be, that's for sure. Scientists used to CARE about their reputations. Nowadays, it's more about recognition, and money.

What a shame.

When he began with the EPA he knew feck nothing about the environment, he got a job there under the old pals act.
he wasn't an expert then, and presumably still not, he is a comedian though.
Sentence was pretty hard, the man does need some kind of help.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: beezzer

I find it stupid and ignorant to deny man's role in climate change

I find it stupid to use equipment meant for statistics that can't perform properly, because it has been installed incorrectly, like below...University of Arizona temperature gauge sitting on roasty concrete, there's probably heaps like that.

a reply to: poncho1982
This is dumb. He is a human being with a job, try these myths :

* Every policeman is honest.
* Every nurse cares about their patients.
* Every politician has integrity in pursuit of doing what's best for the public.
* Every shopkeeper is 100% honest about mistakes.
* Every farmer cares about their lifestock.
* Every ATS member has never broken the law.
* Every ATS member tells the truth all the time.
* Every ATS member admits to being wrong in the face of evidence.
* Every doctor is teetotal, non smoking, 6-a-day fibre eating, BMI perfection.

Naaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh

a reply to: smurfy

Well, imagine that.

Anyone who has spent any time in a hot parking lot knows that was a dumb idea.

www.epa.gov...

Seems the EPA knows it too.

originally posted by: poncho1982
a reply to: smurfy

Well, imagine that.

Anyone who has spent any time in a hot parking lot knows that was a dumb idea.

www.epa.gov...

Seems the EPA knows it too.

Of course they do, (notwithstanding some dodgy employees of course) NOAA lay down the installation guidelines such as this,
'The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface'
It's hilarious when you look at the actual installations, and that probably includes the National Weather Centre, and NOAA themselves.
In edit, here's one for NWC..I don't see one for NOAA..yet!



Got one, Also Arizona

originally posted by: poncho1982
Did I say it was this one guy? No.

I've been losing faith in them for a LONG time.

And it has everything to do with anthropomorphic climate change. Considering that's what he did for a living! Let's not overlook that inconvenient fact.

"The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change" first line of the article.

It's even worse that he worked for the EPA.

I wonder how much this highest-paid employee made.. you seem to have left it out despite it being in the article:

Until he retired in April after learning he was under federal investigation, Beale, an NYU grad with a masters from Princeton, was earning a salary and bonuses of $206,000 a year, making him the highest paid official at the EPA.

Wow, literally the highest-paid EPA employee makes crap wages compared to quite a lot of people...

originally posted by: Greven

I wonder how much this highest-paid employee made.. you seem to have left it out despite it being in the article:

Until he retired in April after learning he was under federal investigation, Beale, an NYU grad with a masters from Princeton, was earning a salary and bonuses of $206,000 a year, making him the highest paid official at the EPA.

Wow, literally the highest-paid EPA employee makes crap wages compared to quite a lot of people...

It's a government body, not J.P. Morgan's establishment. However, there can be fairly generous non salary payments made to officials for spending money, like travel, accommodation, mileage, housing and so on, all stuff the other 9 to 5's have to shell out for themselves. Now this guy was pretty shrewd in the first place, and probably even more shrewd in pursuing his fantasy/madness. It's not hard to visualise then this guy just banking his salary and living quite well off the rest, and well up there.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: poncho1982
Did I say it was this one guy? No.

I've been losing faith in them for a LONG time.

And it has everything to do with anthropomorphic climate change. Considering that's what he did for a living! Let's not overlook that inconvenient fact.

"The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change" first line of the article.

It's even worse that he worked for the EPA.

I wonder how much this highest-paid employee made.. you seem to have left it out despite it being in the article:

Until he retired in April after learning he was under federal investigation, Beale, an NYU grad with a masters from Princeton, was earning a salary and bonuses of $206,000 a year, making him the highest paid official at the EPA.

Wow, literally the highest-paid EPA employee makes crap wages compared to quite a lot of people...

If you consider 200k a year to be crap wages, then you must already be a 1%er

originally posted by: beezzer
We can find a person armed with a Youtube video claiming that the Moon landings never occured. And people will say, "Plausable".

But be a skeptic on climate-man-made-change? You're branded a heritic because you don't believe. Or called names like idiot and stupid.

Did you really just argue a point of view via an analogy between "hoaxed moon landings" and "man-made global warming"? Your analogies in this thread are... interesting - first Jared and now this? I'd really like to see the mountain of scientific evidence for hoaxed moon landings, as it does actually exist for man-made global warming.

Seems to me the Global Warming Alarmists are getting desperate as outlined below.



wattsupwiththat.com...



The more they insult others and call people idiots and stupid,the more desperate they become.

Nothing worse than a true believer,the whole Global warming hysteria smacks of fanaticism.

a reply to: Sunwolf
Nice link. Their opinions have been debunked over and over again.

For a more scientific viewpoint check out this site:
www.skepticalscience.com...

a reply to: smurfy
Are you going to find an excuse to throw out weather balloon data too?