Global warming data a hoax?

[agent00f]

The past droughts in California described in that article are fully accepted in the scientific community. The recently ended drought is minor in contrast though of obvious impact to people there today. CA can expect and will get a truly devastating 100 year drought with nothing we can do to avert it as a normal course of natural climatic variation sometime in the future.

I was mocking the common phenomenon of ignoramuses posting some "revelation" as if actual experts are completely unaware of whatever gets time on fox news.

 

[IGBT]

It's a eco-KOOK wet dream. Everybody knows it. We are now in Bernie Madoff territory of pencil whipped "science" and pencil whipped "proof"..just like Madoff's fake financial statements to keep his financial "hoax" going. The Climate Hoax is a pencil whip attack on Public Policy and the Tax Payer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...lobal-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth

In his view, the whistleblower had shown that ‘NOAA cheated and got caught’. No wonder Smith and many others are concerned: the revelations go to the very heart of the climate change industry and the scientific claims we are told we can trust.

Remember, the 2015 Paris Agreement imposes gigantic burdens and its effects are felt on every household in the country. Emissions pledges made by David Cameron will cost British consumers a staggering £319 billion by 2030 – almost three times the annual budget for the NHS in England.

 

[agent00f]

It's a eco-KOOK wet dream. Everybody knows it. We are now in Bernie Madoff territory of pencil whipped "science" and pencil whipped "proof"..just like Madoff's fake financial statements to keep his financial "hoax" going. The Climate Hoax is a pencil whip attack on Public Policy and the Tax Payer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...lobal-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth

In his view, the whistleblower had shown that ‘NOAA cheated and got caught’. No wonder Smith and many others are concerned: the revelations go to the very heart of the climate change industry and the scientific claims we are told we can trust.

Remember, the 2015 Paris Agreement imposes gigantic burdens and its effects are felt on every household in the country. Emissions pledges made by David Cameron will cost British consumers a staggering £319 billion by 2030 – almost three times the annual budget for the NHS in England.

A brain trust like this is why only 6% of scientists are conservative.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

A brain trust like this is why only 6% of scientists are conservative.

it helps get the point across if you use a very large font with a bold typeface. I mean, if they went to the trouble to do that, it must be important and truthful.

 

[Chaotic42]

I was mostly talking about the link in his Signature
GOP ACA Replacement Plan very funny imo.

But as far as Wikipedia that was eight years ago and I can't control everything that is printed or posted. As far as conservapedia, its an online joke. You have to see everything through Christian fundamentalist eyes?

Here is what trending there.

• Satan
• Black hole
• Mysteryoes God Have a Sense of Humor?
• Counterexamples to an Old Earth
• Intelligent design

Black holes are logical contradictions because of Hawking Radiation? Wow. Why deny black holes?

 

[Paratus]

It's a eco-KOOK wet dream. Everybody knows it. We are now in Bernie Madoff territory of pencil whipped "science" and pencil whipped "proof"..just like Madoff's fake financial statements to keep his financial "hoax" going. The Climate Hoax is a pencil whip attack on Public Policy and the Tax Payer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...lobal-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth

In his view, the whistleblower had shown that ‘NOAA cheated and got caught’. No wonder Smith and many others are concerned: the revelations go to the very heart of the climate change industry and the scientific claims we are told we can trust.

Remember, the 2015 Paris Agreement imposes gigantic burdens and its effects are felt on every household in the country. Emissions pledges made by David Cameron will cost British consumers a staggering £319 billion by 2030 – almost three times the annual budget for the NHS in England.

Got your science grades back. Bad news your taking summer school.

 

[Paratus]

Did you know there is a GHG even more powerful than any of the 3 you listed and even more powerful than CH4? That is the one we should watch out for.

Yup there's a lot of chemicals more potent than CO2:

Of course you are probably referring to water vapor.

The IPCC considers it the most import feedback greenhouse gas.

Other reports in this collection

7.2.1.1 Water vapour feedback
Water vapour feedback continues to be the most consistently important feedback accounting for the large warming predicted by general circulation models in response to a doubling of CO2. Water vapour feedback acting alone approximately doubles the warming from what it would be for fixed water vapour (Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000). Furthermore, water vapour feedback acts to amplify other feedbacks in models, such as cloud feedback and ice albedo feedback. If cloud feedback is strongly positive, the water vapour feedback can lead to 3.5 times as much warming as would be the case if water vapour concentration were held fixed (Hall and Manabe, 1999).

Of course increasing water vapor is driven by increasing atmospheric temperatures.

 

[Jaskalas]

In his view, the whistleblower had shown that ‘NOAA cheated and got caught’.

Except for the FACT that the 'whistleblower' said nothing of the sort.
Per anyone who bothers checking the evidence.
Dailymail is straight up lying.

 

[fskimospy]

As an interesting note, the article that formed the basis for this thread that so many conservatives swallowed uncritically has been sanctioned by the UK's independent press standards organization for failure to ensure the accuracy of their article and failure to correct misleading statements in it. The article in question now is pretty funny as they've had to place what amounts to a retraction at the top.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Full ruling here: https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=01032-17

 

[Amused]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ures-mail-on-sunday-for-global-warming-claims

As usual, the anti-science crowd is caught lying.

Ipso ruled that the Mail on Sunday had “failed to take care over the accuracy of the article and had then failed to correct these significantly misleading statements”. Further, a graph published with the article that purported to show large differences between NOAA’s published data and data on warming from other sources was found to be wrong, owing to the newspaper’s “failure to plot the lines correctly”.​

Some of these examples were deemed to constitute breaches of the editorial code to which newspapers sign up.

 

[sandorski]

The Chinese got to them. :Colbert:

 

[Jhhnn]

Believing the Daily Mail is like believing the National Enquirer- it's strictly for the gullible.

 

[thraashman]

Believing the Daily Mail is like believing the National Enquirer- it's strictly for the gullible.

Well, it's strictly for people who decided what to believe before looking for something to back up what they believed, facts be damned