Jump to content

***Official OT MMCC/Global Warming Thread***

Recommended Posts

jetsjets1028    10

I'm assuming so. Waiting for the authorities to come in and tell us.

Haven't even opened the link yet for fear of being brainwashed by the "scientists" that are doing this for the money. Willywoo's words were enough to warn me of the impending s**tstorm (and I aint even a climate surgeon).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moss Boss    20

Frauds!

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

I'm am still shocked how many people simply believe what they hear, because it's what they want to believe.

Buncha people getting duped by this bullshit.

I'm shocked how many people simply believe what they read, just because it appeals to their feels. So many people getting duped by this bullshit.

Your boy here, the guy who wrote this article, has been caught in the past altering NOAA graphs and cherry-picking their data, so that he can make bogus claims. And this guy is not a climate scientist btw (if that matters to you), his degrees are in geology and engineering. Hey, but I guess he's uncovered this giant conspiracy for you..

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

Can't seem to get a link to work on my phone here.. That article doesn't address your link exactly, but it was a similar situation. Claims in here about it all being a hoax - it's fuckn 'climategate' - and in the end, it was some bloggers inventing a conspiracy out of misinterpreted e-mails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moss Boss    20

Wait a minute.. Maybe you were saying that very article is bullshit. The realclimatescience link. It's late, I don't even know anymore.

But yeah, that dude has been railing on this shit for awhile, and has been caught more than once just making bullshit up. He became what he hated maybe.. happens all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm shocked how many people simply believe what they read, just because it appeals to their feels. So many people getting duped by this bullshit.

Your boy here, the guy who wrote this article, has been caught in the past altering NOAA graphs and cherry-picking their data, so that he can make bogus claims. And this guy is not a climate scientist btw (if that matters to you), his degrees are in geology and engineering. Hey, but I guess he's uncovered this giant conspiracy for you..

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

Can't seem to get a link to work on my phone here.. That article doesn't address your link exactly, but it was a similar situation. Claims in here about it all being a hoax - it's fuckn 'climategate' - and in the end, it was some bloggers inventing a conspiracy out of misinterpreted e-mails.

LOL Climatescam is coming to an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willywoo    235

Can't seem to get a link to work on my phone here.. That article doesn't address your link exactly, but it was a similar situation. Claims in here about it all being a hoax - it's fuckn 'climategate' - and in the end, it was some bloggers inventing a conspiracy out of misinterpreted e-mails.

Seems legit.

And lol factcheck.org.

How bout you dispute the facts in the article.

lol conspiracy. It's just liberals doin what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

Since Trump won't give funding to push a MMGW agenda can we expect 97% of scientists to say that MMGW doesn't exist during his presidency since it was Obama and Libs making up that data bc that was where the funding was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moss Boss    20

Seems legit.

And lol factcheck.org.

How bout you dispute the facts in the article.

lol conspiracy. It's just liberals doin what they do.

This dude is not giving you the full story.

Let's look at the graph of the five-year mean, Measured (Raw) vs Reported (Final). According to the raw data, before about 1975, and particularly before about 1945, there are larger, wilder swings between the high and low temperatures. And after about 1975, the highs and lows become tighter, and the raw and reported figures align more closely. What do you suppose happened? According to NASA and NOAA, as they have explained and as Goddard already knows, weather station recording techniques improved over those decades. They removed biases and errors in how the temperatures were recorded, and the previous data is corrected. Basically, the data before about 1975, and particularly before about 1945, is skewed b/c they weren't as good at precisely recording the temperatures, and making sure the techniques b/w stations were uniform.

Now, if you look at his graph closely, you can see that even the raw data - the fuckn raw data that he's so sure is the truth, and that NOAA is manipulating - shows warming. The raw data shows about 0.8 degreees of warming in the avg. temperature.

The difference b/w the raw and reported figures is about 0.75 degrees. Not the 1.5 degrees he claims. He's lying to your face, and you're swallowing it. And that 0.75 degrees discrepancy is mostly in the data collected before 1975, which has been explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaaarrrp    29

Seems legit.

And lol factcheck.org.

How bout you dispute the facts in the article.

lol conspiracy. It's just liberals doin what they do.

You do realize you're doing exactly what you're giving Moss a hard time for doing, right? I have to roll my eyes at questioning the legitimacy of factcheck while hyping a blog from a known climate skeptic/sometimes bullshitter as the absolute truth.

"Dispute the facts" is such a nonsensical request given the audience and your level of expertise. Almost anyone can write an article claiming certain facts that may be hard to dispute given the subject and lack of attention paid to it. Even more people can latch onto said article and use it as "proof" to confirm their beliefs. That doesn't necessarily make something true or false. If you think it's a fair line, I'd like to see you dispute the "facts" in this article:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/

I don't have a dog in this fight but I probably trust factcheck to be more unbiased than the "deplorable climate science blog."

Is what this guy claimed, legit? I don't know. What I do know is that analysis and discussion should obviously be taking place but I'm not interesting in hearing anything from people who are clearly led primarily by their bias.

In the end, this is what makes this discussion so mindblowingly unproductive. People on both sides who take articles supporting their bias as gospel while completely ignoring anything to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moss Boss    20

Alright, I should say the raw data does not show a clear trend of warming the way the adjusted data does. Though there is roughly 0.8 degrees rise in average temp from 1900 to 2010, the hot 1930's in the raw data removes any clear trend. And the adjusted data makes the rise look a lot more significant.

I'd be more inclined to take Goddard at face value, if he hadn't been wrong so many times before. To the point that he's had to issue retractions and effectively say 'nevermind' about his mis-analyses in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willywoo    235

NOAA has been caught many times fudging data. The media doesn't report it because it doesn't fit their agenda. If we have learned anything at all from this past election, it is that media is not to be trusted on what they report and what they don't report. I don't have a dog in the fight either and I also don't really care to debate any facts since it turns into a cut and paste discussion. What is unacceptable is the lack of acceptance of debate on the topic by the chicken littless and "settled science" crowd. To say that this is settled science is the big steaming pile of bullshit. It is unacceptable that a significant number of attorney generals are now pursuing companies and others for fraud based on their view an opinions concerning MMGW. Using the government and political agenda to suppress speech is about as bad as it gets. Factcheck.org has been less than transparent in their self portrayal and they are not accurate in their substantive analysis of many issues, in other words it is a loser website that should not be given any credence.

Many people getting on board with an agenda or a way of thinking is not a conspiracy either. Every week when a issue gets addressed by political hacks we hear the same 4-5 buzzwords or phrases in response to what ever issue is at hand. This is not a conspiracy, it is people learning what the talking points are, learning what the objective of the agenda are, and then falling in line or getting on board. A biased researcher is not a co-conspirator, he is a biased researcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

What exactly is that 97% saying? From what I understand they agree that the climate is changing and it's likely man has contributed. I can say with 97% certainty there is a good chance our pollution has had a negative affect.

What I can't say is how much, neither has 97%. There is no consensus on that part.

Or were you talking about 97% of the climate models all being on the high side of their predictions before the data was "adjusted"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willywoo    235

Do they fudge data or adjust it? There is a difference.

It also seems according to your link that they even annotate the places where they full in data.

They change the data to fit their desired result. The difference between fudging and adjusting lies in the motivation. It is a fraud. imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willywoo    235

Will we expect to see the scientific data change under a Trump administration since the 97% bias was so politically driven?

I don't have the answer to that specifically, but if I had to guess, I would say politics will color what data we get from the government, no matter who is in charge.

Your 97% number is bullshit too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

They change the data to fit their desired result. The difference between fudging and adjusting lies in the motivation. It is a fraud. imo

Article I posted said the adjustments in raw data, which is a normal scientific step in all fields of study, are actually resulting in showing a decrease in warming trend. Also data for just the US doesn't mean much to overall data.

There may be tendencies one way or another but the article you posted doesn't seem too conclusive and as biased as any source it hopes to refute.

I also don't understand bc it seems to show some warming in the graph of both raw and adjusted data over the last century, but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

Sure it's a strong consensus, but of what?

Btw, out of the 10's of thousands they sent the questionnaires out to, the small percentage that actually returned the surveys is what makes up that consensus. We've seen the concerted effort to block publication of contrary opinions and the peer pressure, the funding pressure and other political pressures. If you had a different opinion it would be in your best judgement for your career's sake to not reply to that survey.

Just repeating that number without having any content for it is at best falling in line with the talking points, at worst dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

I still find it hard to believe that there are not groups that would find it in their interest to fund science that would discredit the normal MMGW studies.

I expect you expect those results to change now that the administration is changing since scientists are all easily swayed in their studies based on where $ is coming from?

I will stop using the 97% number and say a large majority of scientists support studies showing that humans are affecting climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willywoo    235

Not sure about the 97% number and obv all 97% saying exact same thing. Certainly s strong concensus is fair to say.

A consensus doesn't mean shit, especially if the consensus is wrong. Consensus was Hillary will win the election. Consensus was based on reliable polling data. Stop being a dupe. Be skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

Not sure what the 10's of 1000's of questionnaires you are referring to are.

So you don't even know where that number came from but are repeating it several times just on this page.... you are good little soldier slim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.