100 Percent Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

Ahhhh, so you're funded by the evil pro-globalist lobby? If people didn't doubt you wouldn't that mean the evil globalists wouldn't need to keep funding you?

originally posted by: CB328
Warming is real. We had two weeks straight of 100 degree weather in Washington 2 summers ago, which was unheard of. Now I'm in Texas again and it's 80 degrees at the end of December, which is hot even for here.

But if you don't believe weather you can look at animals moving their habitats north, and the seasons shifting for absolute proof:

io9.gizmodo.com...

this is a perfect example of someone who doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy

originally posted by: pianopraze
Seems the only thing that's clear to me is:

The science is NOT settled.

Yes it is settled. The media, armchair scientists, and nefariously funded "research" (which has never once been proven legitimate) is screwing over me and every other scientist out there. The science community is pulling their hair out watching you people try to figure it out.

Let me help you. It's not just about this one set of data. A big part of ecology research is about understanding the feedback loops that occur between all the different factors that influence our climate and environment. We have an infinite amount of data provided at so many different levels in ecology through independent researchers across the planet that it has become impossible to disprove the data. Let me repeat that. The supporting data from soil, atmospheric, population, geological, rangeland, and oceanic has made it impossible to disprove the temperature data. IMPOSSIBLE. There never was any fraud except by anyone who got caught. We know how to catch people faking data. It happens all the time and those people get removed from their positions. Seen it happen a few times firsthand. I'm sorry, but once again the theory of climate change is not a conspiracy theory. It's just not. Get that out of your head once and for all and stop getting your information from people who have zero actual experience and education in science or on doing climate research. It's like ignoring the mechanic who was educated in cars by the engineers at Porsche AG and has been taking pretty damn good care of your car for free your whole life and spiting him for no reason whatsoever to take repair advice from that drunk homeless guy behind your nearest 7/11. ATS is the drunk homeless guy in this analogy.

Perhaps you should focus on the actual argument? I have not seen anyone deny climate change.
The debate is about how mankind effects it and more specifically the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
Not all scientists believe the correlation stands up to scrutiny, and indeed one group of scientists and mathematicians have found what they believe to be an error in the model that underpins the entire man made global warming argument. Your argument seems to be that we should believe the majority view and ignore everyone else - or worse discredit or smear them. Thankfully over the course of human history mankind has rejected this majority view when new evidence surfaces,which has led to great discoveries and innovation.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy

originally posted by: pianopraze
Seems the only thing that's clear to me is:

The science is NOT settled.

Yes it is settled. The media, armchair scientists, and nefariously funded "research" (which has never once been proven legitimate) is screwing over me and every other scientist out there. The science community is pulling their hair out watching you people try to figure it out.

Let me help you. It's not just about this one set of data. A big part of ecology research is about understanding the feedback loops that occur between all the different factors that influence our climate and environment. We have an infinite amount of data provided at so many different levels in ecology through independent researchers across the planet that it has become impossible to disprove the data. Let me repeat that. The supporting data from soil, atmospheric, population, geological, rangeland, and oceanic has made it impossible to disprove the temperature data. IMPOSSIBLE. There never was any fraud except by anyone who got caught. We know how to catch people faking data. It happens all the time and those people get removed from their positions. Seen it happen a few times firsthand. I'm sorry, but once again the theory of climate change is not a conspiracy theory. It's just not. Get that out of your head once and for all and stop getting your information from people who have zero actual experience and education in science or on doing climate research. It's like ignoring the mechanic who was educated in cars by the engineers at Porsche AG and has been taking pretty damn good care of your car for free your whole life and spiting him for no reason whatsoever to take repair advice from that drunk homeless guy behind your nearest 7/11. ATS is the drunk homeless guy in this analogy.

Nope it's more like, finding out that the mechanic who has been regularly claiming that you have 2-300 dollar problems with your car tries to tell you, you need a new engine and you find out that the majority of the 2-300 dollar problems were actually $5 dollar relays that were actually recalls for defective manufacture.

Then when you call him on it, other mechanics who do the same thing, say, "no, most mechanics agree that this is the problem".

Jaden

a reply to: crazyewok

I dont think its completely BS

It's completely BS.

It's two biggest signs of hydrochloro bullsnip are:

1. Carbon credits.

2. Pushing a technology that depends on the weather to work, after saying it's CHANGING.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Here is the issue.

I very early on repeatedly say I am not saying what you describe isn't possible. Give you examples of scientific conflicts of interest.



I repeatedly say that I don't agree with carbon taxing and trading.

I make a clear point that population growth and habitat destruction is the issue.

That we have finite resources.

That the solutions are artifact based. I can't believe I have to explain that. I mean inventions. Machines. When a machine produces clean energy efficiently what would the purpose be to keep say coal?

That my bones are a group of politicians deciding who gets to be winners.

I told you I am most aligned with rand paul of any modern politician.

Your the person who saw red and decided to completely ignore the arguments and go on a rant about absolutely nothing I was argueing.

You got stuck on me explaining my backround.

So basically your whole argument is that only you could possibly know what is right and no amount of science can possibly amount to your arm chair reasoning.

Good luck.

By the way which links of mine did you read, they pertained to the issue and you didn't comment on them?

a reply to: TrueAmerican

bahaha, love the "one last slap" headline on drudges site. But some of us already knew this info years prior. Not so much conspiracy theory is it now? More like... conspiracy FACT.

Thanks for the share S & F

As someone that has been ice fishing for the past 40 years I beg to differ. Every year I eagerly anticipate the beginning of the ice fishing season. I know when the ice forms on the lakes and know when it disappears. The past 15 years have been nothing like the 25 years that preceded it. Last year we had no ice at all. Usually by the second week of December the ice forms. This year it formed then it all melted away this past week. From my own personal observations the past 15 years have been warmer then the previous 25.

a reply to: luthier

Dude I wrote 2 whole sentences about your close ones who work in science. Then I wrote my tale of the path of the self educated self engineered "Socio-Agnostic" versus the fallacies of the environmentalist movement. Was rather surprised by that response this morning. That's all. GG.

Anyone who thinks the science is settled has been brainwashed. It's not even a matter of thousands of scientists must be lying. Actually many scientists have had their work misrepresented by a handful of charlatans:

Studies that try to "prove" this science is settled arbitrarily define what the word "agreement" means and throw away papers that can come to no conclusion as to the cause of the warming (which is the vast majority of papers)

The issue isn't whether the planet is warming. Any geologist can tell you that overall, yes the planet is getting warmer. Hello, we're just coming out of a #ing ice age, of course it's getting warmer. This has been known for centuries. Not to mention anyone that's into the astro-sciences knows solar output is increasing. This has been known for decades.

The issue is how much are humans contributing to it? Only a small minority of climate scientists actually think humans are the driving force behind the warming. Most think we are either a minor contributor or that there's just not enough data to form a conclusion yet. That's the exact opposite of "settled science". This is the real result of studying thousands of papers written on the subject. Only about 1% came to the conclusion that humans are the major contributor. It's grade-school level math.

a reply to: face23785

I can't think of very much settled science in general but most of what I have expirience with falls into cosmology.

However I find it ironic your proof is from an editorial.

I think there is a lot of left/right brainwashing going on.

Personally it seems obvious to me because we have brains and reason the goal should be doing more with less. You can project when we run out of resources and what happens if we allow humans to leave no wilderness or at the least managed wilderness.

As smart as we are things like bees from evolution are better suited to the planet than their genetically modified cousins.

a reply to: luthier

The subject here isn't availability of resources. Let's stay on topic. Forbes isn't the source. The studies claiming to show this "consensus" are the source, Forbes (among other places) merely show, using the studies' own "data", how it actually shows nothing of the sort. And I chose the article that I thought explained it simply enough for people who are already thoroughly committed believers in AGW to understand. You first have to be open to the concept that there is no consensus though, otherwise I might as well be typing to a virtual wall.

The numbers are there for you to check back on. You can go to the studies themselves and see Forbes isn't lying. It doesn't take a degree or a published paper to look at what they did. It's a simple matter of counting and working out percentages. They disregarded over 90% of the papers they claimed to "study" because those papers could draw no conclusions as to the cause of warming. That's not settled science. That's a vast majority of "we're not sure". You can draw that conclusion from READING THEIR PAPERS. The Forbes piece presents no new data, it explains how this "consensus" myth was started and why it's false. If you disagree with their logic, refute it with some logic of your own. How exactly does 90% of the papers on the subject drawing no conclusion as to the cause of the warming amount to "settled science" that AGW is real?

a reply to: face23785

Well its all linked in my opinion. If you cut down enough volume of say rain forest or forest in general your taking some of the earth's climate control out of the equation, when you mix that with natural phenomena like volcanic activity, and man made emissions and things you can have a situation of faster collapse or change. There is a symbiotic relationship.

But yes I always look at all the information and have found plenty of political conflict of interest.

As far as consensus I can also provide contradicting information.

Like this. link

I don't hold it as religion but it holds some decent rebutted to your argument.

You do need to have expertise other wise the wizard of us can wave his hands around and show you convincing stats on either end of this debate.

a reply to: luthier

That's funny because that link says "we came to this percentage" it doesn't explain how. The Forbes article outlines how, and explains how that method is misleading, and you can check it by actually looking at the studies and doing the math yourself. If you want to go that far, you would see that they're right, and no it doesn't require any expertise. The studies I'm talking about don't argue the science, they argue statistics that supposedly show there's a consensus behind the science. The problem is, it's a misleading statistic and the studies are misleading. Basic math can prove it. You don't need a degree for that. If you want to argue that the 90% or so papers that drew no conclusion as to the cause of global warming are wrong, that requires some expertise.

a reply to: face23785

I think the link actually is using questionaire consensus studies given to climate scientists. They are literally using and listing studies that ask the scientists what we are talking about.

a reply to: luthier

And who decides who gets asked?

Apparently the 1000 or so scientists who wrote the papers that were disregarded by "studies" that I was talking about weren't asked, because if they were they would've gotten nowhere near 90+%. Try this:

Go to your link, click on the black "Advanced" tab, and scroll down a bit to the heading "The Consensus Project" that has the big red pie chart with a giant 97% in it and read what it says. "97% of climate papers STATING A POSITION on human caused global warming". This is exactly what I, and the Forbes article have been telling you. They can only arrive at this number if they throw out all the papers (the vast majority written on the subject) which come to no conclusion about the cause.

Also note it says "agree global warming is happening and we are the cause". I never argued there's no warming, and "we are the cause" is lumping everyone who thinks humans contribute AT ALL into one convenient category. As the Forbes article explains, and you can check yourself if you actually look at the studies, most of these 97% categorize human contribution as minor.

This is just an example of how you can make statistics say whatever you want. I can't explain it any simpler. If you still don't get it, good luck to you.

a reply to: face23785

If you click on the papers authors highlighted in blue all your questions would be answered. They take you to te published papers where you can read the studies rather than speculate on their content.

Then as you suggest for me you can discredit the methodology they used or the people they questioned.

PS and I said the very same thing about using stats to manipulate an editorial.

You just seem to think Forbes is doing it less than my link.

a reply to: luthier

I just explained how their methodology is flawed and you can't refute it. You're a true believer. It is most certainly a religion for you. Get your little rebuttal in so you can sleep tonight, I've got better things to do than explain stuff over and over that a 10 year old could understand if they didn't have an opinion formed already.

In the studies I have seen on NOAA climate models, there is a great deal of "composite model' and 'weighted average' type of talk, along with explanations that data had been taken from multiple sources and processed in a conglomerate that best represented all of the combined data with indices related to their overall effect on the whole. Certainly not an Earth Sciences Geologist but I think "fake" is way too harsh a catagory as to how this data was presented. IMO.

a reply to: face23785

Ahh so you didn't read the published papers. Got it.


Because they didn't all use the same methodology or survey the same scientists or ask the same questions.

What you did was read the website that listed the studies

How am I true believer?
Nice ad hominem

Did I mention I believe these studies?

Did I mention carbon taxing and carbon trading?

Sounds like you just had a I am taking my ball and going home moment.

Sorry I think your the true believer here.

At least I am open to either side debating this and I certainly think most political carbon talk is agenda based and the rsearch should be heavily scrutinized because of conflicts of interest.

You however haven't pointed towards papers that the scientific community can scrutinize. In fact there are very few scientists who have done that I could give you the list of scientists making claims against AGW in public and they rarely are willing to put it in writing to anyone other than right wing magazine editorials.

So that makes me suspicious. People did this in cosmology all the time. Knowing they would have a much tougher audience to see through the bs. then the general public. Like people who would argue against fine tuning because they saw William Lane Craig use it as a teleological arguement for god, not knowing that wasn't what scientists were saying.

Sorry man but I am pretty agnostic on the topic. So far the "deniers" have much less in the way of formal papers.

There could be plenty of reasons for that too, like being black listed by theor peers for producing them.

Anyhow I consider all that stuff so if that makes me a true believer I guess I am.