GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD
______________________________________________________________________________________
"Adjusted" Data:

______________________________________________________________________________________
Real Data:

The NEW scientific method:

1) Decide on a conclusion that you would like to publish.

2) Gather data and perform experiments rigged only to support that conclusion.

3) If (when) the data don't support your agenda, simply lie.

 

I heard a climate scientist on the radio some time ago pretty much state that that's what they do. Of course he was much more eloquent about it, but nonetheless he stated that they do use estimation and ignore data they define as 'unimportant' to the outcomes they are seeking.

Wrapped it up in the guise of 'you normal people can't understand the process so just believe what we say'. The radio host was almost worshipping this guy.

 

I think that there's real science out there.

There are a huge number of variables. To be incorrect is understandable. Fix it and move on.

There are bureaucrats meddling with the process.

There are those using junk science for whatever reasons.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

 

That's really nothing new and they don't care that anyone knows. They just keep calling you a denier and preach on..

Global warming (climate change) if a farce and a lie...

 

^^^ Exactly. This data is a farce...just like employment numbers, GDP numbers, pretty much any number that has meaning.

 

Why are sea levels rising?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

Maybe because places like New Orleans are sinking.

Then there is all of the erosion that runs into the sea.

Then there are volcanoes and plate tectonics.

The ice is the least of our worries.

Out best bet is to pray for global warming as the hot air will hold more moisture.

 

They dropped the global warming after it came a blizzard , every time al Gore spoke on it

 

Yers ago, I recall reading a comment that I'm pretty sure was from The Algore Himself, basically saying that ''even NORMAL weather was proof of global warming, since the weather SHOULD be skewed".
Ther's just no way to overcome or out-argue this kind of absurd ''logic''.

 

Well since the Weathermen can only get about 50% accuracy I can see why data needs to be "fixed". But this a political and religious agenda for socialist Greenies and nothing but a strong smackdown is going to thwart them.

 

theres more money to be made in the global warming scam then there is in sales of illegal drugs sold in the the US history. For the record,lol, I am not against cleaning our environment up.

 

 

I wonder if the pope is going to go and lecture china about global warming.:xeye:

 

:thumb: Now that's funny!

 

92% to 99% of temperature data is 'estimated'

An analysis of the U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) shows that only about 8%-1% (depending on the stage of processing) of the data survives in the climate record as unaltered/estimated data.

It looks like surface temperature data is hugely biased, and the actual raw data is ignored...

...The US accounts for 6.62% of the land area on Earth, but accounts for 39% of the data in the GHCN network. Overall, from 1880 to the present, approximately 99% of the temperature data in the USHCN homogenized output has been estimated (differs from the original raw data). Approximately 92% of the temperature data in the USHCN TOB output has been estimated. The GHCN adjustment models estimate approximately 92% of the US temperatures, but those estimates do not match either the USHCN TOB or homogenized estimates.

The homogenization estimate introduces a positive temperature trend of approximately 0.34 C per century relative to the USHCN raw data....

Yet the data from their own system is ignored?

Of course Tom Karl and Tom Peterson of NOAA/NCDC (now NCEI) never let this USCRN data see the light of day in a public press release or a State of the Climate report for media consumption, it is relegated to a backroom of their website mission and never mentioned. When it comes to claims about hottest year/month/day ever, instead, the highly adjusted, highly uncertain USHCN/GHCN data is what the public sees in these regular communications.

One wonders why NOAA NCDC/NCEI spent millions of dollars to create a state of the art climate network for the United States, and then never uses it to inform the public. Perhaps it might be because it doesn’t give the result they want?

emphasis mine
I think the author hit the nail on the head with the last statement.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/27/approximately-92-or-99-of-ushcn-surface-temperature-data-consists-of-estimated-values/

 

I recently completed a review of the temperature and humidity sensors used on ocean buoys used around the world since that data is a significant contributor to overall world temperature. I have been involved in formal testing for almost three decades and know that the test set-up and variable control are fundamental to valid data and test results.

The primary sensor used on ocean buoys today went through initial field testing in the 80s resulting in widespread usage starting in the 90s. In reviewing the buoy sensor data sheets it is evident from the data that they do not have the accuracy or resolution necessary to justify the minute temperature increases climate change proponents use on a regular basis in stating that world temperature is increasing.

Another concern I have is when climate change proponents advertise these higher temperatures they never include a margin of error which is inherent in any statistical review of measured data.

I would be more agreeable to the climate change proponent point of view if they would be more forthcoming with their error budgets and used more accurate buoy sensors.

 

Thank you for a factual and unbiased appraisal, Libertywatch!! :thumb:
It is, unfortunately, something missing on the pro-change front.

I think this is because the global warming/climate change hysteria has surpassed any actual scientific reason. It has become a faith based belief system, a quasi-religion.
Therefore, I don't think facts, and real scientific analysis, with appropriate hypothesis testing and challenged findings, can exist within it's constraints anymore. You know, 'the science is settled...' and all that.

It must be getting hard for the faithful to remain so, though. There is so much provably wrong in what they peddle, at some point the evidence has to have an impact. I won't hold my breath, however.

 

Michael E. Kraft: Climate-change deniers deserve punishment

And the drum beat continues........

"Most of us recognize the value of science in dealing with complex problems that pose significant risks to public health and well-being.


Thus we expect reputable science to be reported and used in helping us make difficult policy choices, such as what to do about climate change.


Scientific findings and associated uncertainties should be scrutinized carefully and debated vigorously within the scientific community and among the public.


However, denying the best scientific evidence we have is neither smart nor safe. It could lead to greater societal harm than if we had taken sensible action when reliable knowledge was first available........"

Read more at:http://www.providencejournal.com/op...411/michael-e-kraft-climate-change-deniers-deserve-punishment?template=printart

 

Scientific findings and associated uncertainties should be scrutinized carefully and debated vigorously within the scientific community and among the public.

However, denying the best scientific evidence we have is neither smart nor safe. It could lead to greater societal harm than if we had taken sensible action when reliable knowledge was first available........"

You can't have scrutiny and debate without an opposing argument.
What would you do, punish every scientist who has a differing theory, or challenges the models accuracy?

To date every climate model for assessing climate change has been wrong, data has been fudged (or worse), and political bullying has all but ensured people fall in line with the new religion.

This call to punish deniers is nothing more than charging non-believers with heresy.

Why not start up the inquisitions while we're at it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUMkcBctE7c

 

Climate change/variation or man caused climate change?? BIG DIFFERENCE. We (i.e. man) have little to nothing to do with impacting global climate. In fact, it is now being reported that the changes in polar ice (i.e. melting in some areas and gaining in others) is causing a shift in the earths wobble which is in turn likely affecting the climate. Solar energy input is the single largest contributor to global climate variations. What we humans do is a flea on a dogs ass.

Yep, they are trying to claim that the "fossil fuel" industry is the almost SOLE contributor of "climate change". Then 1/2 of the article is talking about the tobacco industry and drawing a parallel in the tobacco industries denial of cigarette smoke causing cancer is the same as the fossil fuel industry denial of "MAN MADE" climate change (or global warming as it used to be referred to). What a crock of garbage.

 

The problem with morons like Kraft is the position that climate change = man made climate change. That position is beyond idiotic.

Just because the climate is changing (it has always changed) doesn't mean that man is causing said change. If man isn't causing the change how is changing out behavior going to change anything? (redundant deliberately)

 

Wah Wah, I'm gonna cry if you're not punished for not agreeing with me...typical liberal ninny...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...g-tobacco-style-probe-oil-companies-industry-fights-back.html?intcmp=latestnews


And the Left just keeps pushing and pushing.....

 

Is there a facepalm big enough for this idiocy?

The solution is simple : THE OIL COMPANIES SIMPLY NEED TO STOP SELLING THEIR PRODUCT IN THE STATES WHERE THEY ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION. It is a voluntary product offering. Nothing says they have to sell it.

 

It is truly ahh inspiring the links the progressives will go to pervert science, to bolster their religion.

If that is not the height of hypocrisy

 

Oh for pete's sake...they got nothing better to do? Oh yeah, it's crap like this (think Zika) that they dream up to keep us busy. Don't fall for it.

 

The Republicans are just going to bend over and let the dems do this. Things were supposed to change when they took took the House, and nothing changed. Then the Republicans took the Senate too, and nothing changed. We have nobody in government that will stand up to the Commy democrats. At this point, I don't care anymore. Let the clowns sue the oil companies.

 

Normally I agree with your posts...but on this one I don't. R's got the House, R's got the Senate....but neither one of them have anything to do with the DOJ....that is Obama's dept. What do you think Congress could do about this?

 

Yeah. I hated when the government scientists made up facts about tobacco and aspestos. Just to go after innocent business men.

 

Yep. Must mean global warming is real. Scientists are always right don't ya know. Always honest and objective.
Especially Australian scientists that are eager UN/globalist members.

 

I'm pretty frustrated with them myself. But if I step back and look at it objectively, what could they have done with any of the issues? They couldn't start impeachment, they'd be called racists and it would fail, they couldn't stop Obamacare because of Reid, etc. It's the same thing with this DOJ thing...Obama holds all the cards. I'll bet if the R's had 2 more seats in the Senate, it would have been different....they could tell Reid to "stick it where the sun don't shine"

 

fox news...
'nuff said

 

What does that mean? You think it's not true? Go to mass.gov and the attorney generals page type Exxon into search and see for yourself.