YAGlobalWarmingT

[blackangst1]

Came across this during my news reading this morning, and thought it was quite interesting.

First, as full disclosure on *my* view...I believe humans DO contribute to climate change. That seems obvious. What is fuzzy, and what most people cant seem to agree on, is to what extent. Also for the record, Ive never claimed global warming was a hoax. This article, however, says such a thing.

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

Essentially, this points to NOAA and The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration continually changing data to fit an agenda.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.

What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.

Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.

Its quite an interesting read, and will be interesting to see what comes out of this.[/quote]

 

[Jaskalas]

This winter, for instance, as measured by temperature in city after city and by snow-storm severity, has been one of the coldest on record in the Northeast.

But after the NOAA's wizards finished with the data, it was merely about average.

Climate analyst Paul Homewood notes for instance that in New York state, measured temperatures this year were 2.7 degrees or more colder than in 1943. Not to NOAA. Its data show temperatures this year as 0.9 degrees cooler than the actual data in 1943.

The fraud and mishandling of the data is compelling. Unfortunately for us I fear it doesn't change the underlying premise of CO2, rising temps, melting ice, and rising sea level. Our capacity to handle data may be for !@#$, but the premise they're trying to support is either true or it is not true. And so many other pieces of data point to it that you can easily throw out one entire data set and come to the same inevitable conclusion.

 

[fskimospy]

Empirical research into the effects of the adjustments shows that they make the readings more accurate.

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/crn2016/CRN Paper Revised.pdf

This is a similar accusation to one that Lamar Smith and other conservatives have been making for years. They don’t know what they are talking about.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

 

[K1052]

Also for the record, Ive never claimed global warming was a hoax. This article, however, says such a thing.

It's an unsigned editorial spouting a familiar conspiracy theory. Weigh accordingly.

 

[blackangst1]

Empirical research into the effects of the adjustments shows that they make the readings more accurate.

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/crn2016/CRN Paper Revised.pdf

This is a similar accusation to one that Lamar Smith and other conservatives have been making for years. They don’t know what they are talking about.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

These are great opposing articles. Thanks fskimospy

 

[Denly]

First, as full disclosure on *my* view...I believe humans DO contribute to climate change. That seems obvious. What is fuzzy, and what most people cant seem to agree on, is to what extent. Also for the record, Ive never claimed global warming was a hoax. This article, however, says such a thing.

[/QUOTE]

People can debate climate change to dead, lets step back for a sec. Do you enjoy sea garbage patch the size of Texas? Thick smog over city? So bright at night that you can't see the stars? Lake or sea so polluted it is not safe to swim? Amazon disappearing so you can buy cheap ikea? Go green and give yourself a better living.

 

[Caesar]

 

[Paladin3]

Came across this during my news reading this morning, and thought it was quite interesting.

First, as full disclosure on *my* view...I believe humans DO contribute to climate change. That seems obvious. What is fuzzy, and what most people cant seem to agree on, is to what extent. Also for the record, Ive never claimed global warming was a hoax. This article, however, says such a thing.

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

Essentially, this points to NOAA and The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration continually changing data to fit an agenda.



Its quite an interesting read, and will be interesting to see what comes out of this.

There is nothing new about people and organisations using the latest crisis to gain power, influence and money. Almost everyone is working the system. It it's to your benefit embrace the science and play victim. If not, deny!

I'm all for cleaning up this wonderful ball we live on because you'd be an idiot to not think we've had a negative impact on her. I do hate those using climate change scare tactics for profit. But I only mildly despise the slacktivists who think spreading "awareness" via Facebook post is actually doing something. It's right up there with thoughts and prayers.

 

[pmv]

Same old conspiracy theory nonsense from people who don't know what they are talking about.

What gets me about the denialists is the way they continually switch horses. Every time one is shot out from under them they just find a new one and pretend nothing has happened. Often the horses are zombie horses, of course (this sounds similar to the one from a few years back, that WattsUp and Mel Phillips tried to push, finding something sinister in perfectly justified. and routine, surface temperature adjustments, that turned out to not only be justified but actually didn't increase the warming trend anyway).

They've been doing it for decades now. At first I used to try and seriously check out each new effort (since the late '90s at least), but it's clear to me now that it's always the same old crap and its not worth the trouble - especially when it's from someone other than the tiny number of relevantly scientifically qualified people in their ranks (I might still be prepared to listen to a Lindzen or Christie or Spencer etc, though I'm older and tireder than I was then).

The other thing that gets me is how every time they announce their 'new' finding in dramatic hyperbolic terms (not "is there a possible question mark over some of the data showing surface temperature increases in the US?" but "stunning statistical fraud behind the scare"). It's always like that, every time, it's some shocking criminal conspiracy or massive error that has been found by our heros...and then it turns out it was bollocks and the brave uncoverers of gigantic conspiracy forget all about it and move on to the next amazing revelation, which is announced just as breathlessly as the previous one that didn't pan out.
A bit of sobriety and humility would actually make the denialists seem far more credible.

Also, the unknown isn't how much humans are responsible (the trend reasonably matches what one would expect from what humans are doing, and nobody has come up with any other plausible cause, so...), it's the exact details of how the earth's system will react to an increase in its energy budget. It seems that wasn't well understood at the start, and probably there's still loads of things to learn. Seems safe to assume it won't be good overall, though, even if we can't be sure exactly which unpleasantness will befall which parts of the globe or the precise time-scale. (I'm still hoping the UK is geographically well-positioned to avoid the worst of it, but the reality of global politics and economics is that nobody escapes crises even if they occur somewhere else - cf Syria)

 

[WHAMPOM]

Came across this during my news reading this morning, and thought it was quite interesting.

First, as full disclosure on *my* view...I believe humans DO contribute to climate change. That seems obvious. What is fuzzy, and what most people cant seem to agree on, is to what extent. Also for the record, Ive never claimed global warming was a hoax. This article, however, says such a thing.

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

Essentially, this points to NOAA and The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration continually changing data to fit an agenda.



Its quite an interesting read, and will be interesting to see what comes out of this.

[/QUOTE]

There is only one question here, do the adjustments make the data more accurate and leave the conclusions unchanged?

 

[blackangst1]

There is only one question here, do the adjustments make the data more accurate and leave the conclusions unchanged?[/QUOTE]

I honestly dont know. I, nor anyone on this board, is qualified to definitively answer that. All we can do is read the studies and come to our own conclusions.

 

[Commodus]

The comic Caesar mentioned is spot-on. It's always funny how climate science deniers act like global warming and clean energy are sinister conspiracies, but they can never really articulate what's evil about them. Oh no, we might sustain the planet, reduce pollution and improve overall quality of life!

The only allegation I've heard is that it'll hold the US economy back, but that's a crappy argument when even China is honoring the Paris climate agreements and investing in clean energy. There's literally no good reason to deny the reality of climate science, because it'd be far less painful to curb pollution and see less benefit than expected than to do nothing and find out we've just doomed the human population.

 

[blackangst1]

The comic Caesar mentioned is spot-on. It's always funny how climate science deniers act like global warming and clean energy are sinister conspiracies, but they can never really articulate what's evil about them. Oh no, we might sustain the planet, reduce pollution and improve overall quality of life!

The only allegation I've heard is that it'll hold the US economy back, but that's a crappy argument when even China is honoring the Paris climate agreements and investing in clean energy. There's literally no good reason to deny the reality of climate science, because it'd be far less painful to curb pollution and see less benefit than expected than to do nothing and find out we've just doomed the human population.

Although I agree with your comment, using China as an example is simply ridiculous.

 

[Thebobo]

Empirical research into the effects of the adjustments shows that they make the readings more accurate.

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/crn2016/CRN Paper Revised.pdf

This is a similar accusation to one that Lamar Smith and other conservatives have been making for years. They don’t know what they are talking about.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

Damn It your the guy I couldn't find, oh well you're here, carry on lol

 

[Commodus]

Although I agree with your comment, using China as an example is simply ridiculous.

It's really to illustrate that even China, one of the greatest polluters on the planet, is still smart enough to accept the reality of climate science and do something about it. It's kind of a sad commentary when a country notorious for its smog is more environmentally friendly than the current US administration.

 

[blackangst1]

It's really to illustrate that even China, one of the greatest polluters on the planet, is still smart enough to accept the reality of climate science and do something about it. It's kind of a sad commentary when a country notorious for its smog is more environmentally friendly than the current US administration.

I understand China has made huge strides in terms of green and renewable energy int he last 4-6 years; however, theyre starting from a place the USA started in in the 70's and 80's when we began moving towards those goals.

edit: We've been at this for over 40 years...https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-long-fight-against-air-pollution-21017286/

 

[Commodus]

I understand China has made huge strides in terms of green and renewable energy int he last 4-6 years; however, theyre starting from a place the USA started in in the 70's and 80's when we began moving towards those goals.

edit: We've been at this for over 40 years...https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-long-fight-against-air-pollution-21017286/

Oh, I agree -- but right now, we have an American leadership that's not only determined to freeze progress, but pretends it can turn the clock back (thankfully, there's not much it can do). It's as much about your current direction as where you're starting from.

 

[bshole]

The comic Caesar mentioned is spot-on. It's always funny how climate science deniers act like global warming and clean energy are sinister conspiracies, but they can never really articulate what's evil about them. Oh no, we might sustain the planet, reduce pollution and improve overall quality of life!

The only allegation I've heard is that it'll hold the US economy back, but that's a crappy argument when even China is honoring the Paris climate agreements and investing in clean energy. There's literally no good reason to deny the reality of climate science, because it'd be far less painful to curb pollution and see less benefit than expected than to do nothing and find out we've just doomed the human population.

At this point, the strongest argument against global warming is that it may reduce the human population.

None of us have much to worry about though, we will most likely be dead before any strong effects of global warming are seen. That really depresses me in some ways. I wish I could come back in 200 years to compare predictions to what actually happens.

 

[Paratus]

Came across this during my news reading this morning, and thought it was quite interesting.

First, as full disclosure on *my* view...I believe humans DO contribute to climate change. That seems obvious. What is fuzzy, and what most people cant seem to agree on, is to what extent. Also for the record, Ive never claimed global warming was a hoax. This article, however, says such a thing.

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

Essentially, this points to NOAA and The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration continually changing data to fit an agenda.



Its quite an interesting read, and will be interesting to see what comes out of this.

[/QUOTE]

This is the same bullshit physics deniers have been peddling for years.

While I understand your feeling that it’s difficult for anyone here to know for certain, I don’t share that feeling. If you want to know which of two articles is trustworthy go with the peer reviewed one from a reputable science journal as opposed to an unauthored opinion piece on site that has nothing to do with the subject. 99/100 times you’ll pick the correct article.

Glad I could help.

 

[dank69]

Hey guys I'm not a climate denier I just trust any opinion piece I can find on the internet that tries to claim MMCC is a scam because I think it's a scam (but I'm not a denier!) and when people point out flaws in the piece I nitpick irrelevant details of their rebuttals because I'm very interested in finding the truth.

 

[Brainonska511]

I honestly dont know. I, nor anyone on this board, is qualified to definitively answer that. All we can do is read the studies and come to our own conclusions.

If we aren't qualified to discuss the underlying data, what makes us qualified to read the studies and come to our own conclusions? How can we decide which studies are crap and which aren't?

There is nothing wrong with the trusting the consensus of the experts, who can convert the studies from the generally more technical terminology of scientific publishing into. And on this matter, the consensus of the experts is clear: climate change is real and human activity is a primary driver of the rapid climate change currently occurring.

 

[Jaskalas]

At this point, the strongest argument against global warming is that it may reduce the human population.

None of us have much to worry about though, we will most likely be dead before any strong effects of global warming are seen. That really depresses me in some ways. I wish I could come back in 200 years to compare predictions to what actually happens.

Very few people will be dying of cancer in 20-30 years. Once that is cured, who is to say the disease of age won't follow?

 

[Paratus]

At this point, the strongest argument against global warming is that it may reduce the human population.

None of us have much to worry about though, we will most likely be dead before any strong effects of global warming are seen. That really depresses me in some ways. I wish I could come back in 200 years to compare predictions to what actually happens.

If you want to reduce the human population, just reduce poverty and increase education and watch the birth rate fall by individual choice.

No global apocalypse required. Cool huh?

 

[Jaskalas]

If you want to reduce the human population, just reduce poverty and increase education and watch the birth rate fall by individual choice.

No global apocalypse required. Cool huh?

You forgot the part about dramatically reducing our standard of living. What the first world experiences in life, especially Americans, is FAR removed from sustainable with our current population level.

Although, I suppose we're not the only ones. Asia Could Run Out of Fish by 2048
Sustainability is a far greater issue than CO2, and might be considered off topic from climate change.

 

[Paratus]

You forgot the part about dramatically reducing our standard of living. What the first world experiences in life, especially Americans, is FAR removed from sustainable with our current population level.

Although, I suppose we're not the only ones. Asia Could Run Out of Fish by 2048
Sustainability is a far greater issue than CO2, and might be considered off topic from climate change.

As reducing our quality of life is not required and quite frankly counterproductive I didn’t forget it.


A good proxy for quality of living is electrical consumption per capita.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC

The US per capita level of electrical consumption for 2014 was ~13000kwh. I wouldn’t recommend trying to bring the rest of the world that high.

However another 1st world country like Italy at 5000kwh per capita is much more doable.

Italy also has a negative population replacement rate.

China is almost up to Italy using 4000kwh per capita and its replacement rate is also trending negative.

India has a ways to go at only 900kwh per capita. However over the rest of the century I assume one could have a 1stworld quality of living at 3500-4000kwh as efficiency increases.

Sub Saharan Africa is a mess of course.

But the point is give them a 1st world quality of life and people don’t have as many kids so Asia doesn’t run out of fish, South American farmers don’t have to slash and burn rainforest which stores 160-200 tons of carbon per hectare, and global business can have a market of 7 billion 1st world consumers instead of 1 billion first world consumers + 9.5 billion living in poverty.

It’s win-win-win if anyone was brave enough to actually work towards it.