Massive data manipulation by AGW industry!

[skookerasbil]

Because us "alarmists" understand that the dozen or so investigations* weren't bogus.

* - From the Farmer's Almanac thread
The content of the emails stolen from the East Anglia mail server were reviewed by:

• The University of East Anglia
• The American Meteorological Association
• The American Geophysical Union
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• The UK's Met Office
• The IPCC
• The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
• The Royal Scoiety of Chemistry
• The Institute of Physics
• The specially formed independent Science Assessment Panel
• The US National Academy of Science
• Pennsylvania State University
• UEA's Climate Change Email Review Committee
• Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce
• US National Science Foundation

NONE OF WHOM CONCLUDED THE STOLEN EMAILS INDICATED DATA HAD BEEN FALSIFIED. NONE.

Please tell me you aren't serious?

• The University of East Anglia

• The American Meteorological Association

• The American Geophysical Union

• American Association for the Advancement of Science

• The UK's Met Office

• The IPCC

• The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

• The Royal Scoiety of Chemistry

• The Institute of Physics

• The specially formed independent Science Assessment Panel

• The US National Academy of Science

• Pennsylvania State University

• UEA's Climate Change Email Review Committee

• Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce

• US National Science Foundation

No reasonable person would consider ANY of those listed above to be a impartial entity = the key component to any legitimate investigation.

Using the same standard, Democrats then should be fine with House conservatives doing ALL the investigations into Donald Trump!!

Double standards are ghey.



https://blog.volkovlaw.com/2014/05/undermining-an-internal-investigation-lack-of-impartial-investigator/


What we are seeing here is a distinct lack of experience in navigating in the real world......which one often see's with people consumed by hard sciences and w0wed by acedemia. Not all, but many. For most of the others, there is a great deal of naïve!

Only a dummy would consider ANY of the entities above an impartial investigator.

 

[skookerasbil]

Tommy.....got your PM. Yes indeed.......the level of dishonesty in this forum has gone off the rails.

Look at post #160......there is no such thing as absolute truth for anything anymore. Confucious says that when words no longer carry any meaning, liberty cannot survive.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Tommy.....got your PM. Yes indeed.......the level of dishonesty in this forum has gone off the rails.

Look at post #160......there is no such thing as absolute truth for anything anymore. Confucious says that when words no longer carry any meaning, liberty cannot survive.

He or them are lying because there ARE e-mails talking about changing or omitting data.

 

[skookerasbil]

Tommy.....got your PM. Yes indeed.......the level of dishonesty in this forum has gone off the rails.

Look at post #160......there is no such thing as absolute truth for anything anymore. Confucious says that when words no longer carry any meaning, liberty cannot survive.

He or them are lying because there ARE e-mails talking about changing or omitting data.

But more staggering to me is this idea that they promote that the investigation was legit. To think so would be beyond retarded so it's really about strategic lying.

 

[Crick]

Because us "alarmists" understand that the dozen or so investigations* weren't bogus.

* - From the Farmer's Almanac thread
The content of the emails stolen from the East Anglia mail server were reviewed by:

• The University of East Anglia
• The American Meteorological Association
• The American Geophysical Union
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• The UK's Met Office
• The IPCC
• The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
• The Royal Scoiety of Chemistry
• The Institute of Physics
• The specially formed independent Science Assessment Panel
• The US National Academy of Science
• Pennsylvania State University
• UEA's Climate Change Email Review Committee
• Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce
• US National Science Foundation

NONE OF WHOM CONCLUDED THE STOLEN EMAILS INDICATED DATA HAD BEEN FALSIFIED. NONE.

Please tell me you aren't serious?

• The University of East Anglia

• The American Meteorological Association

• The American Geophysical Union

• American Association for the Advancement of Science

• The UK's Met Office

• The IPCC

• The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

• The Royal Scoiety of Chemistry

• The Institute of Physics

• The specially formed independent Science Assessment Panel

• The US National Academy of Science

• Pennsylvania State University

• UEA's Climate Change Email Review Committee

• Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce

• US National Science Foundation

No reasonable person would consider ANY of those listed above to be a impartial entity = the key component to any legitimate investigation.

Using the same standard, Democrats then should be fine with House conservatives doing ALL the investigations into Donald Trump!!

Double standards are ghey.



https://blog.volkovlaw.com/2014/05/undermining-an-internal-investigation-lack-of-impartial-investigator/


What we are seeing here is a distinct lack of experience in navigating in the real world......which one often see's with people consumed by hard sciences and w0wed by acedemia. Not all, but many. For most of the others, there is a great deal of naïve!

Only a dummy would consider ANY of the entities above an impartial investigator.

Who would you like to have performed a review and can you explain why they haven't done so?

 

[skookerasbil]

Because us "alarmists" understand that the dozen or so investigations* weren't bogus.

* - From the Farmer's Almanac thread
The content of the emails stolen from the East Anglia mail server were reviewed by:

• The University of East Anglia
• The American Meteorological Association
• The American Geophysical Union
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• The UK's Met Office
• The IPCC
• The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
• The Royal Scoiety of Chemistry
• The Institute of Physics
• The specially formed independent Science Assessment Panel
• The US National Academy of Science
• Pennsylvania State University
• UEA's Climate Change Email Review Committee
• Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce
• US National Science Foundation

NONE OF WHOM CONCLUDED THE STOLEN EMAILS INDICATED DATA HAD BEEN FALSIFIED. NONE.

Please tell me you aren't serious?

• The University of East Anglia

• The American Meteorological Association

• The American Geophysical Union

• American Association for the Advancement of Science

• The UK's Met Office

• The IPCC

• The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

• The Royal Scoiety of Chemistry

• The Institute of Physics

• The specially formed independent Science Assessment Panel

• The US National Academy of Science

• Pennsylvania State University

• UEA's Climate Change Email Review Committee

• Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce

• US National Science Foundation

No reasonable person would consider ANY of those listed above to be a impartial entity = the key component to any legitimate investigation.

Using the same standard, Democrats then should be fine with House conservatives doing ALL the investigations into Donald Trump!!

Double standards are ghey.



https://blog.volkovlaw.com/2014/05/undermining-an-internal-investigation-lack-of-impartial-investigator/


What we are seeing here is a distinct lack of experience in navigating in the real world......which one often see's with people consumed by hard sciences and w0wed by acedemia. Not all, but many. For most of the others, there is a great deal of naïve!

Only a dummy would consider ANY of the entities above an impartial investigator.

Who would you like to have performed a review and can you explain why they haven't done so?

s0n....if I have to explain that, it means you just dont get it. I cant help you.

The important thing is, the readers understand.

 

[Crick]

No, it means you don't have an answer.

 

[mamooth]

It’s polka

Sigh. Kids these days don't know the basics of American culture.

Harvey (film) - Wikipedia
---
Harvey is a 1950 American comedy-drama film based on Mary Chase's play of the same name, directed by Henry Koster, and starring James Stewart and Josephine Hull. The story is about a man whose best friend is a pooka named Harvey – in the form of a six-foot-eight invisible rabbit.
---

Billy seems to get his information from an imaginary pal, thus why I asked about his pooka.

 

[mamooth]

By all means, please let us know ALL the inputs that affect climate. The fact is as a species we can't begin to list ALL the inputs in relation to climate, let alone quantify them or know how they interact. You can't and neither can anyone else. This is not settled science

Your "We don't have perfect knowledge, so therefore we know next to nothing" attitude is anti-science and anti-rationality.

By your standard there, since we don't have perfect knowledge about gravity, we know nothing about gravity, so we shouldn't launch rockets. That simple example illustrates how dumb your standard is.

Back in the rational world, perfect knowledge is rarely present, and almost never necessary. In the rational world, knowledge in a field reaches a status of "good enough" to take action on. Gravity and climate science are two examples of such fields where our knowledge is "good enough".

What's more, you're not even consistent with your anti-rationality standard. You only apply it to the single case of climate science, which indicates you did so for political reasons.

And yet according to a recent study from NASA the deep oceans are still cooling in response to the LIA. Now.

Which was an evasion from the simple point that surface temperatures were completely recovered from the LIA by 1850, making the "Warming is due to recovery from the LIA" theory obviously wrong.

Based on what

Based on the proxy temperature record. Are you now rejecting that as well?

You've suddenly discovered an infallible cycle that is supposed to happen. Please enlighten the world as to your known cycle.

If you're unaware of what Milankovitch cycles are, you really shouldn't be in the discussion.

Now, why don't you tell us what your theory is? What predictions does it make for the near future?

And I'm not going to throw out a theory based on incomplete science.

"I'm not sure what makes the sun hot, but those fusion people don't have perfect data, so obviously we can't believe that nonsense! And I'm so brilliant and honest for saying that! If you say the sun runs on fusion, you're rejecting science!"

You have no theory, and you're proud of having no theory. Yet you're demanding that your lack of any theory replace the solid theory that explains all the observed data, and which makes testable predictions that have a remarkable success record.

It's not so much that you've rejected the scientific method, it's that you believe you're above it, being you have sacred scripture handed down by your political/religious cult. Only other people are required to use liberal tricks like facts and data.

 

[skookerasbil]

No, it means you don't have an answer.

Well....maybe not....but at least I do know what the word "impartial" means as it applies to investigations!

 

[daveman]

lol......hey s0n, did you know the Presidents new panel on climate change convened today? Being led by......a climate denier!!

Well, yeah. Faking science on behalf of TheParty is what Stalinist governments do. Denialism is modern Lysenkoism.

All the deniers here back such Stalinism.

I'm just making it clear where we all stand here.

The rational people stand for the free exchange of scientific ideas.

The deniers stand for Stalinist censorship and propaganda. And violence. Lots of violence. The deniers spend their days dreaming dreaming about the civil war/race war that will allow them shoot all of the jews/liberals who keep humiliating them.

Speaking of violence...

2005: Margo Kingston, in Australia’s Daily Briefing, said: “Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.”

2006: Bill McGuire, at University College, London, said: “We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And, to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference.”

2006: The Grist.com website called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics. The article was later retracted.

2006: Heidi Cullen featured Dave Roberts, who said online, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.” The remark was not later retracted.

2006: Mark Lynas, a “green” columnist, wrote: “I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put [their climate change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.”

2006: Spiked Online reported that when a correspondent for the American current affairs show 60 Minutes was asked why his various feature programmes on global warming did not include the views of global warming sceptics, he replied: “If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?”

2007: Ellen Goodman, in the Boston Globe, said: “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

2007: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics, saying: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” The penalty for treason is death.

2007: Yvo de Boer, secretary general of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible”.

2007: Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a UN special climate envoy, said: “It’s completely immoral even to question” the UN’s scientific opinion on climate.

2008: Dr James Hansen of NASA demanded that skeptics be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2008: David Suzuki, a Canadian environmentalist, said government leaders skeptical of global warming should be “thrown into jail”.

2008: Alex Lockwood, a British journalism professor, said that writers questioning global warming should be banned.

2009: A writer at Talking Points Memo said global warming “deniers” should be executed or jailed. He later retracted this remark.

2010: James Lovelock, inventor of the “Gaia hypothesis”, told The Guardian: “I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

2010: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Penn State University, declared that skeptics, who had caused “a 25-year delay in acting to stop climate change”, may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2010: A video from the “10:10 campaign” showed climate skeptic children being blown up by their teacher in class, and their classmates were spattered with their blood and guts.

2011: An Australian journalist said climate skeptics should be “branded” with cattle-irons to mark them out from the rest of the population.

2011: Another Australian journalist said skeptics should be “gassed”.

2012: Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz, Austria, recommended the death penalty for skeptics. He later withdrew.

2012: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Widener University School of Law, again declared that skeptics may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2014: Dr Lawrence Torcello, assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote that people who disagreed with him should be sent to jail.

2014: During a February cold snap, the New York Times ran a cartoon headed “Self-Destructing Sabers for Dispatching Climate-Change Deniers” and showing a climate skeptic being stabbed with an icicle.

2014: The gawker.com website said: “Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.”

2014: The host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show promoted Soviet-style re-education for climate skeptic politicians by conducting an on-air poll on the question “Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”

2015: Katie Herzog at Grist.com on 16 January wrote: “If this planet is to survive the scourge that is humanity, we all have to stop reproducing. Yes, all of us. In that spirit, I propose we … sterilize every human male on his 10th birthday.”

2015: Comment on the webpage of the Brisbane Times about a category 5 cyclone along the Queensland coast on 19/20 February: “These type of weather events could happen further south in future and be more intense with global warming … if anyone has to suffer out of this one I hope it is a climate change denier, if anyone.” Downloaded fromhttp://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cyclone-marcia-live-coverage-20150219-13iuaw.html.

2015: The Australian Capital Territory’s Arts Fund gave $18,793 “to assist with costs of the creative development of a new theatre work, Kill Climate Deniers”.​

Wow. You climate change cultists are dangerous.

 

[daveman]

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

When you look at the unaltered data there is no change in warming or cooling rates. I think its funny as hell to watch the alarmists squirm when even after their Karl et al manipulations we are now cooling...

Is this our government's official stats on the issue?

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

I found the following paragraph amusing.

"Across inaccessible areas that have few measurements, scientists use surrounding temperatures and other information to estimate the missing values. Each value is then used to calculate a global temperature average. This process provides a consistent, reliable method for monitoring changes in Earth's surface temperature over time."

I can understand how "estimate the missing values" could lead to a consistent method. Reliable, not so much.

Good point....we typically see graphs like this showing how the earth is burning.. Note the real hotspots....the places where its the hottest evah...

Here is what the map looks like if we only use data where we have instrumentation.....most of the global temperature data is simply made up...and they invariably make the places with the least instrumental coverage, the hottest places on earth.

Global Warming Hysteria: Evidence of Cooked Books

And in the wake of NASA’s claim that the last decade was the warmest since records began being kept–duly reported here–I find it telling that scientists may have been cherry picking the data to obtain a predetermined result. From the story:​

Two months after “climategate” cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming. Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada. Worse, only one station — at Eureka on Ellesmere Island — is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada. Yet as American researchers Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses “just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.”

Why does that matter?

Using the agency’s own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA’s Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today. Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and GISS also ignore data from numerous weather stations in other parts of the world, including Russia, the U.S. and China.

They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia — a high-altitude, landlocked country — but instead “interpolates” or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from “nearby” temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin. The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.

 

[baileyn45]

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

When you look at the unaltered data there is no change in warming or cooling rates. I think its funny as hell to watch the alarmists squirm when even after their Karl et al manipulations we are now cooling...

Is this our government's official stats on the issue?

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

I found the following paragraph amusing.

"Across inaccessible areas that have few measurements, scientists use surrounding temperatures and other information to estimate the missing values. Each value is then used to calculate a global temperature average. This process provides a consistent, reliable method for monitoring changes in Earth's surface temperature over time."

I can understand how "estimate the missing values" could lead to a consistent method. Reliable, not so much.

Good point....we typically see graphs like this showing how the earth is burning.. Note the real hotspots....the places where its the hottest evah...

Here is what the map looks like if we only use data where we have instrumentation.....most of the global temperature data is simply made up...and they invariably make the places with the least instrumental coverage, the hottest places on earth.

Global Warming Hysteria: Evidence of Cooked Books

And in the wake of NASA’s claim that the last decade was the warmest since records began being kept–duly reported here–I find it telling that scientists may have been cherry picking the data to obtain a predetermined result. From the story:​

Two months after “climategate” cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming. Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada. Worse, only one station — at Eureka on Ellesmere Island — is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada. Yet as American researchers Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses “just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.”

Why does that matter?

Using the agency’s own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA’s Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today. Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and GISS also ignore data from numerous weather stations in other parts of the world, including Russia, the U.S. and China.

They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia — a high-altitude, landlocked country — but instead “interpolates” or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from “nearby” temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin. The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.

On top of this, this data is being compared to data collected from the past. Data that may or may not be from the same stations. Even if they're from the same stations, we've had equipment changes, changes in times of readings, changes in the siting of the instruments. All are unknowns in the veracity of the historical data.

 

[Crick]

Things of that nature that ARE known are the justifications of some of the adjustments that have been made to historical data.

 

[Crick]

Tommy.....got your PM. Yes indeed.......the level of dishonesty in this forum has gone off the rails.

Look at post #160......there is no such thing as absolute truth for anything anymore. Confucious says that when words no longer carry any meaning, liberty cannot survive.

He or them are lying because there ARE e-mails talking about changing or omitting data.

Then lets see them.

 

[baileyn45]

Things of that nature that ARE known are the justifications of some of the adjustments that have been made to historical data.

And the accuracy of those adjustments?

 

[Crick]

No, it means you don't have an answer.

Well....maybe not....but at least I do know what the word "impartial" means as it applies to investigations!

That response makes no sense.

 

[Crick]

Things of that nature that ARE known are the justifications of some of the adjustments that have been made to historical data.

And the accuracy of those adjustments?

As accurate as possible and done very conservatively. The net result, by the way, has been to REDUCE the amount of warming seen since records begin.

 

[daveman]

Things of that nature that ARE known are the justifications of some of the adjustments that have been made to historical data.

And I'm sure it's just sheer coincidence that the adjustments have all been upwards, right?

 

[baileyn45]

Things of that nature that ARE known are the justifications of some of the adjustments that have been made to historical data.

And the accuracy of those adjustments?

As accurate as possible and done very conservatively. The net result, by the way, has been to REDUCE the amount of warming seen since records begin.

As accurate as possible? So basically you are saying "we've taken a guess". So 25% of readings above the arctic circle is reduced to 3%, and the obvious bias this would create is replaced by a guess. And just think that's only Canada. Globally an inordinate amount of stations that have fallen off of the grid since the early 90s were soviet high latitude stations. More guesses. In the realm of science, this sucks.