Exposed, Duped & Manipulated

[Channman 2]

I myself not much of a believer in the GW Religion as I call it. More of an agnostic (maybe, maybe not)...don't think about it much. However I know it is an important topic to millions around the world and maybe my unbelief is more to do with this article. There seems to be False Prophets in the Global Warming community and or those that are looking to get their 30 pieces of silver so to speak by manipulating the data.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

[rehmwa 2]

Channman

More of an agnostic (maybe, maybe not)...don't think about it much.

this made me chuckle

(I don't have further comment, didn't read the link)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Channman 2]

rehmwa

***More of an agnostic (maybe, maybe not)...don't think about it much.

this made me chuckle

(I don't have further comment, didn't read the link)

Well to be clear, Skeptic, Doubter

[gowlerk 2,262]

Channman

******More of an agnostic (maybe, maybe not)...don't think about it much.

this made me chuckle

(I don't have further comment, didn't read the link)

Well to be clear, Skeptic, Doubter


All of which basically means that you have chosen to just ignore it. And that you don't really have any idea what the truth is, but you know what is easier for you.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[kallend 2,129]

Channman

I myself not much of a believer in the GW Religion as I call it. More of an agnostic (maybe, maybe not)...don't think about it much. However I know it is an important topic to millions around the world and maybe my unbelief is more to do with this article. There seems to be False Prophets in the Global Warming community and or those that are looking to get their 30 pieces of silver so to speak by manipulating the data.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

The Daily Mail just last week announced that Trump's SCOTUS nominee founded the "Fascism Forever" society in school. Did you believe that too?

/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gowlerk 2,262]

Quote

Exposed, Duped & Manipulated

It appears he has been!

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[kallend 2,129]

gowlerk

Quote

Exposed, Duped & Manipulated

It appears he has been!

The only duped and manipulated folks here are the middle and working class people who believed that Trump has their best interests at heart.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gowlerk 2,262]

Quote

The only duped and manipulated folks here are the middle and working class people who believed that Trump has their best interests at heart.

You can believe that. I choose to believe that most of them are smarter than that. And that the reason they voted Trump was to seize the rare opportunity to give the finger to the man. That is still stupid, but a different stupid.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 444]

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

How about this source? It came from the government so it must be trustworthy.

[brenthutch 444]

kallend

***

Quote

Exposed, Duped & Manipulated

It appears he has been!

The only duped and manipulated folks here are the middle and working class people who believed that Trump has their best interests at heart.

How about addressing the substance of the article. Your inability to respond in a meaningful manner speaks to the weakness of your position. If you best retort is "trump sucks and smoking is bad for you" we can all agreed that you concede the point.

[DanG 1]

I get all my best science information from Lamar Smith.

- Dan G

[gowlerk 2,262]

Quote

How about addressing the substance of the article. Your inability to respond in a meaningful manner speaks to the weakness of your position. If you best retort is "trump sucks and smoking is bad for you" we can all agreed that you concede the point.

The weakness of the article is readily apparent when you read it. It merely claims a disagreement about the timing of the release of the data and report. I does not refute either. The only people quoted in the story attempting to characterize the report as questionable are a couple of R politicians seeking to inflame their base. In other words, the article is worthless as a source of information on climate change.

As always when you quote this garbage in this forum I will attempt to draw your attention to the simple obvious undeniable fact that the world's glaciers are melting, the sea is rising, and atmospheric CO2 is increasing. All measurable hard to deny facts. I will also draw your attention to the fact that even Mr. Trump's EPA nominee, Mr. Pruitt is now on record as believing in man made climate change.

Faced with all that, when will you ever stop grabbing at worthless straws in an attempt to prove what you vainly wish was true instead of facing up to the facts?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 444]

"NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.
Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend."

You must have missed the part about "unreliable" and "overstated".

[gowlerk 2,262]

Speaking of missing the point, I replied to your question. The paper in either version with either data set does not chance the essential facts of climate change. Any chance of you addressing mine?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 444]

It cuts right to the heart of the AGW debate, climate sensitivity. If the revised numbers bring back the "pause" it blows AGW theory right out of the water.

[gowlerk 2,262]

brenthutch

It cuts right to the heart of the AGW debate, climate sensitivity. If the revised numbers bring back the "pause" it blows AGW theory right out of the water.

Dude, CO2 levels, sea level rise, disappearing glaciers and arctic ice. Give your head a shake. Like Pruitt did. You are confusing your ideology with reality.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 3,092]

> If the revised numbers bring back the "pause" it blows AGW theory right out
>of the water.

No, it doesn't (even if you assume there's a "pause" now, which no one has demonstrated.) There was a 37 year "pause" from 1943-1980. That didn't "blow the AGW theory right out of the water."

[Phil1111 1,149]

gowlerk

***It cuts right to the heart of the AGW debate, climate sensitivity. If the revised numbers bring back the "pause" it blows AGW theory right out of the water.

Dude, CO2 levels, sea level rise, disappearing glaciers and arctic ice. Give your head a shake. Like Pruitt did. You are confusing your ideology with reality.

Dude. its all about republican politics.

http://www.nature.com/news/scientists-join-massive-protest-against-trump-1.21345

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-climate-change-rebellion-michael-mann-global-warming-scientists-a7556696.html

"On September 20, 2016, 376 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, published an open letter to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change. The letter warns that the consequences of opting out of the Paris agreement would be severe and long-lasting for our planet’s climate and for the international credibility of the United States."
http://responsiblescientists.org/

The next EO will require creationism to be taught in schools. Fund a study stating that high Co2 is good for the environment. Then require scientists to develop a mathematical formula as to how trump lost the pop vote.

[brenthutch 444]

We will just have to wait and see now won't we. I am confident that once approved, Scott Pruitt will shine some much needed sunlight on the climate cabal at the EPA.

[billvon 3,092]

>We will just have to wait and see now won't we.

Well, given that it happened over 30 years ago, not really. But you can keep waiting I guess.

[Stumpy 284]

Channman

I myself not much of a believer in the GW Religion as I call it.

The nice thing about science, is it doesn't give a shit whether you believe in it or not.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>We will just have to wait and see now won't we.

Well, given that it happened over 30 years ago, not really. But you can keep waiting I guess.

"the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015."

Thirty years ago?

[billvon 3,092]

>Thirty years ago?

Yes, over thirty years ago. Are you having trouble following the conversation?

BH:"If the revised numbers bring back the "pause" it blows AGW theory right out
of the water."

BVN: "No, it doesn't (even if you assume there's a "pause" now, which no one has demonstrated.) There was a 37 year "pause" from 1943-1980. That didn't "blow the AGW theory right out of the water." "

BH: "We will just have to wait and see now won't we. I am confident that once approved, Scott Pruitt will shine some much needed sunlight on the climate cabal at the EPA."

BVN: "Well, given that it happened over 30 years ago, not really. But you can keep waiting I guess."

BH: " . . . .Thirty years ago?"

So the answer to your question is yes. (I know you have no interest in a conversation, but if you at least read the post before replying, the thread might make more sense to you.)

[Phil1111 1,149]

Stumpy

***I myself not much of a believer in the GW Religion as I call it.

The nice thing about science, is it doesn't give a shit whether you believe in it or not.

Original story debunked as fake news from 2015.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/more-fake-news-in-the-mail-on-sunday/

"In January 2017, the Forum published on its website an article by Dr Whitehouse which included a fake graph purporting to show that, when the impacts of El Niño are removed from annual global mean surface temperature measurements for 2015 and 2016, there is still a “pause” in global warming since 1997. However, Dr Whitehouse did not attempt to remove the impact of El Niño from any other previous year, hence hiding the true rate of global warming that has occurred.

The new article by Mr Rose demonstrates that ‘The Mail on Sunday’ is still using fake news to mislead the public and policy-makers about the scientific evidence for climate change."

"Dr Whitehouse’s doctorate is in astrophysics, " and another mouthpiece has a degree in "geology".

Its like all the Doctors that came up with the studies over 20 years claiming that "smoking doesn't cause cancers".

Got to give credit to Breitbart news and the tabloids. Anything to sell a rag and fool the weak of mind.

Who can give a good reason why Breitbart hasn't been sued for preying up the weak minded? Sure there are the protections of free speech. But you can't abuse animals, the elderly, etc. Why is it OK to abuse the weak minded and uneducated?

[brenthutch 444]

Problem: Observations do not match climate model predictions and undermine AGW theory.

Science says: AGW theory is flawed.

NOAA says: No problem, we will just molest the observational data until it agrees with our flawed models.

Whistle blower reveals the subterfuge, new EPA administrator has his staff eliminate the data manipulation and POOF, there goes AGW.