An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers

[IanC]

from an old thread...

NoTricksZone Not here to worship what is known but to question it 8211 Jacob Bronowski. Climate news from Germany in English 8211 by Pierre L. Gosselin

hmmmm.....the new thermometers were phased in the 80's and 90's, I wonder if it shows in the temperature history? maybe.

this little story from Germany brings a few questions to mind. why did it take so long for it to come out? the data is seven years old. perhaps more importantly the author is 73 years old, hahahahaha.

 

[IanC]

the comment above does not prove fraud, or even fudging. it shows that the decisions made on how to adjust the data are arbitrary.

it is odd that the adjustments always seem to increase the trend in surface station data though

 

[NoNukes]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

.

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On 'Unbelievable' Scale

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

NOAA Caught Fudging "Global Warming" Data AGAIN

This woman is an American trying to pass herself off as Irish. Talk about fudging.

 

[IanC]

from an old thread...

NoTricksZone Not here to worship what is known but to question it 8211 Jacob Bronowski. Climate news from Germany in English 8211 by Pierre L. Gosselin

hmmmm.....the new thermometers were phased in the 80's and 90's, I wonder if it shows in the temperature history? maybe.

this little story from Germany brings a few questions to mind. why did it take so long for it to come out? the data is seven years old. perhaps more importantly the author is 73 years old, hahahahaha.

No comments to this?

This guy took it upon himself to check the veracity of just one of the numerous adjustments being made to temperature history. It failed spectacularly here.

Just an outlier? Perhaps. The problem is that new methodologies are put in place and the old ones are discarded.

Would you like to see the comparison between the 95, 00, 05, 10, and 2015 methods? Good luck with that because it isn't possible. But we do know that every new methodology adds more cooling to the past and more warming to the recent. As well as smoothing out that pesky and inconvenient warming to the 40's and then cooling to the 70's.

Some adjustments are always necessary. But inconvenient ones like UHI seem to get short shrift. While others are large even though the research behind them seems shoddy at best.

 

[Crick]

So global warming is a massive conspiracy with perfect security. No one ever confesses. No one is ever caught. Seems perfectly reasonable...

 

[LaDexter]

Bull. Plenty have come forward, saying their grants were canceled for concluding no warming. They just don't get any media coverage.

 

[IanC]

So global warming is a massive conspiracy with perfect security. No one ever confesses. No one is ever caught. Seems perfectly reasonable...

Every time you don't want to discuss a particular topic you simply deflect by invoking the strawman of conspiracy theory.

The changes to temperature datasets have been blatantly open, at least in results if not methodology.

The main reason is groupthink. I would like to think that the reason for sloppy and biased choices is the honest belief in the Noble Cause. That getting the warning out on possible disaster overwhelmed the primacy of having actual solid evidence.

Now I am not so sure. Scientific integrity has been contorted by outside influences. You get rewarded for consensus opinions, punished for straying. Lauded on one side, scorned on the other.

I have looked at much of the evidence and in the end found most of the conclusions drawn to be exaggerated and unfounded by the data provided.

My example above showed one scientist making an independent finding that the adjustment in place for moving from one type of instrument to another was flawed. I then investigated the studies that developed that adjustment and found a hodgepodge of findings that didn't really support the arbitrary and generalized final number.

I have found the same sloppiness in many climate science topics. Collecting data is good but making arbitrary conclusions on what is often ambiguous evidence is bad. It is not proper science at any rate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The climate has been changing since the day the Earth was formed and will continue to do so no matter how much Liberals raise taxes and no matter how many freedoms they try and take from us.

We'll even if it was all natural shouldn't we be ready to adapt to it? Or are you one of those that believe in being blind.

 

[Billy_Bob]

what evidence do you have that data were falsified

1. British Court ruling = proves every "study" claiming Antarctic melt was FUDGED and hence FRAUD
2. ClimateGate - "hide the decline" is not science, it is FUDGING busting in action
3. The entire claim of ocean rise, busted for a)no net ice melt ongoing on Earth b) no islands sinking except those on the lip of the PROF


Your whole case is FRAUD. The only thing your side has is the Deliberate misinterpretation of the urban heat sink on the surface ground temperature series, the only temperature series showing warming in the RAW DATA.

its amazing when you place all of their failed models in the same graph with empirical data showing no warming.. But their confidence level in their lie is always increasing even when it shows them liars..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The climate has been changing since the day the Earth was formed and will continue to do so no matter how much Liberals raise taxes and no matter how many freedoms they try and take from us.

We'll even if it was all natural shouldn't we be ready to adapt to it? Or are you one of those that believe in being blind.

We'll even if it was all natural shouldn't we be ready to adapt to it?

We'll have more money to adapt to it, if we haven't wasted 10s of trillions on windmills.
And if we don't wreck our economy by punishing carbon.

 

[IanC]

Not that I recommend it any time soon but it is easy to inject sunlight reflecting aerosols into the high atmosphere if we ever need to cool things down.

Unfortunately there is no easy way to warm things up if it starts getting cold, unless you count ineffectual CO2.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Not that I recommend it any time soon but it is easy to inject sunlight reflecting aerosols into the high atmosphere if we ever need to cool things down.

Unfortunately there is no easy way to warm things up if it starts getting cold, unless you count ineffectual CO2.

Methane. Drill into the arctic deposits.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not that I recommend it any time soon but it is easy to inject sunlight reflecting aerosols into the high atmosphere if we ever need to cool things down.

Unfortunately there is no easy way to warm things up if it starts getting cold, unless you count ineffectual CO2.

Methane. Drill into the arctic deposits.

First good suggestion you've had Matthew... Combusting methane is better than unused escaping methane. Great way to "save the planet".

 

[jc456]

The climate has been changing since the day the Earth was formed and will continue to do so no matter how much Liberals raise taxes and no matter how many freedoms they try and take from us.

We'll even if it was all natural shouldn't we be ready to adapt to it? Or are you one of those that believe in being blind.

what does it mean to be ready. like what?

 

[LaDexter]

Yeah, get the gas right.... umm....

never mind Earth climate is controlled by where land is, not by minor fluctuations of trace atmospheric gasses (that do not alter temperature)....

 

[Crick]

Never mind that LaDexter is incredibly ignorant AND delusional.

Surely you've been asked how, if what you claim were true, the Earth's climate could take huge swings at a rate thousands and thousands of times faster than plate tectonics moves things in and out of the polar regions.

So, what was your answer?

 

[Boston1]

Yikes, and the denial continues

Any of our deniers comprehend the symptoms of Dunning-Kruger syndrome ;--)

 

[SSDD]

Yikes, and the denial continues

Any of our deniers comprehend the symptoms of Dunning-Kruger syndrome ;--)

Yes...its common among warmer cultists.....belief in claims for which evidence that doesn't exist....and belief that certain data is evidence when in fact it isn't....Sure that you have the science on your side when in fact, most of you wouldn't recognize science if it bit you on your ass.

Just to prove my point...I challenge you to provide one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis... Now if you are not a victim of Dunning-Kruger syndrome...you will readily admit that no such data exists....if you are a victim, then you will go on about consensus...and settled science, and deniers while not providing a single shred of the sort of evidence I asked for...all the while never realizing that you believe such evidence exists but none can be found....

 

[Boston1]

Bull. Plenty have come forward, saying their grants were canceled for concluding no warming. They just don't get any media coverage.

Bull is right

I call Bull

If you can't document multiple cases where grants were cancelled specifically because of their findings then your claim is complete BS

 

[Boston1]

Yikes, and the denial continues

Any of our deniers comprehend the symptoms of Dunning-Kruger syndrome ;--)

Yes...its common among warmer cultists.....belief in claims for which evidence that doesn't exist....and belief that certain data is evidence when in fact it isn't....Sure that you have the science on your side when in fact, most of you wouldn't recognize science if it bit you on your ass.

Just to prove my point...I challenge you to provide one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis... Now if you are not a victim of Dunning-Kruger syndrome...you will readily admit that no such data exists....if you are a victim, then you will go on about consensus...and settled science, and deniers while not providing a single shred of the sort of evidence I asked for...all the while never realizing that you believe such evidence exists but none can be found....

LOL clearly you don't comprehend the term.

Although this particular instance of ignorance I'd chalk up to cognitive dissonance rather than Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

You simply can't incorporate the concept into your preferred view and so you not only fail to recognize the true symptoms of Dunning-Kruger syndrome but you ignorantly move on attributing a false definition of the term.

WOW

You just proved my point perfectly.

When all you really had to do in order to cure your ignorance was just look it up. Which you didn't, why ? Because you aren't going to learn, what you don't want to know ;--)

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of those of low ability to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their ability accurately.