Global Warming or Global Bullshit?

[Willie99]

Manhattan should be mostly under water by now

2005 was the beginning of a worsening hurricane trend, with the storms become more frequent and much stronger

Florida should be under water already

We're supposed to be suffering from worldwide famine already

We ran out of fossil fuels before Y2K, no?

Do polar icecaps still exist?

Aren't polar bears extinct?





BTW: neither global warming nor climate change is really what the debate is about. Global warming has been ongoing for 17,000 years now, we should be worried about the next catastrophic global cooling event, happens every 15 to 20 thousand years. The earth's climate has been changing for billions or years. I think it's more naive to think man can stop that change than it is to think man causes that change.

 

[festeringZit]

[ No surprise that these lying fuckers fudged the data. ]

[h=1]Whistle-Blower: ‘Global Warming’ Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference[/h]

5281​

10​

FRANCOIS GUILLOT/AFP/Getty

by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.5 Feb 2017952

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER​

[h=2]A high-level whistleblower at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has revealed that the organization published manipulated data in a major 2015 report on climate change in order to maximize impact on world leaders at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.[/h]According to a report in The Mail on Sunday, NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates has produced “irrefutable evidence” that the NOAA study denying the “pause” in global warming in the period since 1998 was based on false and misleading data.
The NOAA study was published in June 2015 by the journal Science under the title “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.”
Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.” Bates says that Karl did so “in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
Bates said that NOAA bypassed its own protocol, never subjecting the report to NOAA’s strict internal evaluation process. Rather, NOAA superiors rushed the study through in a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of the paper on the Paris meeting on climate change, he said.
The “Pausebuster” paper produced by NOAA in 2015 was based on two new sets of temperature data—one measuring land temperatures and the other sea temperatures—both of which turned out to be flawed.


According to reports, NOAA has now decided to replace the sea temperature dataset just 18 months after it was issued, because it used “unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming.”
A reported increase in sea surface temperatures was due to upwards adjustments of readings from fixed and floating buoys to agree with water temperature measured by ships, according to Bates.
Bates said that NOAA had good data from buoys but then “they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”
The land temperature dataset, on the other hand, was the victim of software bugs that rendered its conclusions “unstable,” Bates said.
Climate change skeptics have long insisted that scientists are susceptible to political and social pressures to produce the “right kind” of data to back up specific policy decisions.
Dr. Duane Thresher, a climate scientist with a PhD from Columbia University and NASA GISS, has pointed to a “publication and funding bias” as a key to understanding how scientific consensus can be manipulated.
Although scientists are held up as models of independent thinkers and unbiased seekers of truth, the reality is that they depend on funding even more than other professions, and will study what they are paid to study.
The Obama administration, which persistently denied that a climate debate even existed, channeled billions of federal dollars into programs and studies that supported its claims, while silencing contrary opinions.
Thomas Karl, the lead author on the Pausebuster paper, had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a “hotline to the White House.” Holdren was an ardent advocate of vigorous measures to curb emissions.
“In reality, it’s the government, not the scientists, that asks the questions,” said David Wojick, an expert on climate research spending and a longtime government consultant.
Federal agencies order up studies that focus on their concerns, so politics ends up guiding science according to its particular interests.
“Government actions have corrupted science, which has been flooded by money to produce politically correct results,” said Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
“It is time for governments to finally admit the truth about global warming. Warming is not the problem. Government action is the problem,” he said.
NOAA, the world’s leading source of climate data, not only produced a severely flawed study for political motives, it also mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data.
Not long after the study’s publication, the US House of Representatives Science Committee initiated an inquiry into its claims that no pause in global warming had existed. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
President Donald Trump has pledged he will withdraw from the Paris Agreement that binds signer countries to a series of stringent measures to lessen emissions.

 

[BZ]

You guys are serious idiots if you think this doesn't exist....period.

 

[festeringZit]

You guys are serious idiots if you think this doesn't exist....period.

Reposting this for the retards like BZ:

 

[Dave007inVegas]

You guys are serious idiots if you think this doesn't exist....period.

Which? Global warming or climate change. Obama started out with global warming
and was laughed out of the room. Being embarrassed, all of a sudden no more
global warming, it was replaced with climate change like they were somehow
one and the same and rubes like you swallowed it without reflux.

I'll bet you believed Fort Hood was really work place violence, you could keep
your doctor and the checks in the mail.

 

[BZ]

Reposting this for the retards like BZ:

Are you suggesting that a time frame of 46 years means anything?? Never mind-youstick to cartoons, I'll stick to science and the VAST MAJORITY of world scientists.

Fortunately you have no impact on the issue.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Are you suggesting that a time frame of 46 years means anything?? Never mind-youstick to cartoons, I'll stick to science and the VAST MAJORITY of world scientists.

Fortunately you have no impact on the issue.

j
Uh oh, ghost alert!

 

[Dave007inVegas]

j
Uh oh, ghost alert!

More like bullshit alert!

 

[BZ]

Which? Global warming or climate change. Obama started out with global warming
and was laughed out of the room. Being embarrassed, all of a sudden no more
global warming, it was replaced with climate change like they were somehow
one and the same and rubes like you swallowed it without reflux.

I'll bet you believed Fort Hood was really work place violence, you could keep
your doctor and the checks in the mail.

Call it it what you want. I'm sure you shitstains are right, it's all a hoax created by the Chinese as the buffoon has suggested.

Do you know what really amazes me though? I get the idiot Repulicans from the fossil fuel states fighting science since it jeapardizes their longevity. I also understand the massive backing from the oil companies to discredit the science and their greed to destroy our environment. Both are morally reprehensible but that's what greed does.

Why would anyone else buy into the denial?

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Call it it what you want. I'm sure you shitstains are right, it's all a hoax created by the Chinese as the buffoon has suggested.

Do you know what really amazes me though? I get the idiot Repulicans from the fossil fuel states fighting science since it jeapardizes their longevity. I also understand the massive backing from the oil companies to discredit the science and their greed to destroy our environment. Both are morally reprehensible but that's what greed does.

Why would anyone else buy into the denial?

Damn right it is. Only Liberals believe otherwise.

 

[BZ]

Damn right it is. Only Liberals believe otherwise.

You really believe that huh? Who created it and what was the purpose?

 

[SheriffJoe]

More like bullshit alert!

Yes, that too.

 

[SheriffJoe]

You really believe that huh? Who created it and what was the purpose?

Climate Change Inc is a global 1.5 trillion dollar industry.

Does this really need to be spelled out to you?

Like Dave said, only liberals buy into "climate change"

 

[BZ]

Joe- this is an adult conversation so no need for you to be concerned.

 

[carlspackler]

Environmental Green is the new Commie Red.

 

[mplastered]

Are you suggesting that a time frame of 46 years means anything?? Never mind-youstick to cartoons, I'll stick to science and the VAST MAJORITY of world scientists.

Fortunately you have no impact on the issue.

Fortunately, nothing has an impact on this issue.

 

[Acebb]

Never mind-youstick to cartoons, I'll stick to science and the VAST MAJORITY of world scientists.

You have no idea, none at all, what science actually is. Let me help you.

let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.

In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

====
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

 

[Willie99]

The debate is not about global warming or climate change Global warming, that's just fake news from the demographics that tend to live in a fake world, where nothing to say is really true. The most recent example? Trump has issued a ' MUSLIM BAN", they're just liars feeding the minds of the 10 second soundbite crowd.

The earth's temperatures rise for a 15,000 to 20,000 year cycle, followed by a 70,000 year cycle of global cooling. We're in approximately year 17,000 of a global warming cycle. Until some scientist can prove the next catastrophic cycle of global cooling is not about to happen (relatively speaking), then I think mankind should be finding a way to survive that next significant and REAL life changing event.

The earth's climate has been changing for something between 2 billion and 20 billion years. For people to think we're going to STOP CLIMATE CHANGE by using less fossil fuels is incredibly naive to me. Just thinking you can change the earth's climate is laughable at this point, otherwise we would do it for the better, A? I understand man wants to feel as if they actually have control of something, that's why so many actually put faith in career politicians, because they believe somebody can actually micro manage world events. But reality is we don't control the climate, we can't control the climate, and we'll never STOP climate change. Lest we can start controlling stuff like solar spots, volcanic eruptions and deep sea currents.

Science can't even precisely tell us what the weather will be like next week, they don't know what's at the bottom of the ocean, and they can't even cure the common cold.

We're not stopping climate change people, it's infinitely more naive to think you can stop climate change than it is to question "man made climate change THEORIES"

 

[festeringZit]

Are you suggesting that a time frame of 46 years means anything?? Never mind-youstick to cartoons, I'll stick to science and the VAST MAJORITY of world scientists.

Fortunately you have no impact on the issue.

Anyone else see the blatant irony in this response? Being that the earth has been here for billions of years?

 

[festeringZit]

Anyone else see the blatant irony in this response? Being that the earth has been here for billions of years?

Clue: How many years of climate data are the climate change hoaxers drawing from? I.e. how many years have we been keeping track? Hmmm?