Global Warming: Massaging the Data per Desired Results?

[RickD]

Can I make a sweeping suggestion??
If anyone is interested in information. Creditable information, don't listen or cite politically motivated websites in regards to scientific findings.
Look to independent funded research.
Non biased....
Never trust a political or religious site. They are unscrupulous in representing thier own agenda from all sides.
Thank goodness impartiality still exists.
Be wise in research, look to creditable unbiased research

You mean like Al Gore?

[PaulSacramento]

It doesn't matter WHERE one gets the info, it matters ONLY if it IS correct.
Wiki is notorious for mistakes BUT if you search the foot notes and citations, you can see if the info is backed up or just opinion.

[PaulSacramento]

The way information is being screwed with nowadays I suggest getting it from various sources.
And to try to NOT fall into confirmation bias, as had as it is.

[Stu]

Al Gore Humiliation: NASA Study Confirms Sea Levels Are FALLING

[Philip]

Al Gore Humiliation: NASA Study Confirms Sea Levels Are FALLING

"You've got to be kidding me!"



"OK, THINK, man - there's got to be some way to spin this obvious 'statistical anomaly!'"

[Morny]

yeah, scientists have no idea what they are talking about.
Leading, world renowned scientists with degrees and masters in the field across the globe with studies and data that has been deemed irrefutable by the general consensus by the leading minds in the field are pulling ya leg.

Priceless sarcasm. Fortunately, we (the average person) don't have to rely on scientific consensus.

With a little effort, we can understand and evaluate for ourselves the global warming evidence.

The biggest hurdle may be temporarily suppressing any nightmarish gag-reflex that Al Gore might be correct. (Most here might find helpful first knocking down a double shot of Tennessee Honey.) Then, the easy part is taking a little time to understand the climate scientists' argument. Believing the argument is not necessary, just understanding is.

One more thing ... Chancellor Palpatine answers Anakin's question about where to learn how to save others from death with: "Not from a Jedi." Similarly, you can learn about climate science, ... but not from a climate denier.

Our children and grandchildren will thank you for your effort.

[Philip]

So when did the most-recent warming begin?

A Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming

How about 18,000 years ago, as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice. The planet's always been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. Ultimately, we have merely been enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze - and this began WAY before the industrial age began. Again, the idea that we can take partial statistics from the last 150 years and apply them accurately to a 4.5 billion year old planet is laughable - at best, we can only show some trends, but not causes, and particularly we cannot KNOW we aren't just in normal cyclings of the planet.

Approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily - during interglacial periods - which appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning. THINK about that - MANY known cycles which have lasted 15,000 - 20,000 years - which means our ability to apply 150 years of partial data to computer models created with all kinds of assumptions, and many unknowns, simply are not going to produce CERTAINTY about a tiny window of climate time. That's just a fact that those foaming at the mouth over climate changes refuse to consider - that their cherished man-made "doomsday" warming narrative may well not be accurate because of the long, past climate history, many assumptions, and many currently unknowable variables. And it's already proven FAR different that what was being said 10, 15 and 20 years ago. But don't let facts get in the way - just keep cherrypicking partial - and as noted, often-massaged data - so as to fit the desired narrative.

Related FACTS:

Global warming during Earth's current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and diversity of all life. For example:

- Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.

- By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America from Asia.

- Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.

Earth Ice Over Last 700,000 Years

- Over the past 750,000 years of Earth's history, Ice Ages have occurred at regular intervals, of approximately 100,000 years each.

(Source: Courtesy of Illinois State Museum)

Notice that the facts above are taken from many cycles, EACH which have been many thousands of years in the making. Compare that to the razor-thin data used to support the GW doomsday scenarios. And NONE of the above is to make a case that man-made caused warming isn't possible - or perhaps even significantly dangerous. But it IS to note the absurdity of those who are convinced by such a thin slice of data - often massaged, and so often politically driven. Once one asks important questions related to the data - how it's been plugged in, point out the immense deficiencies inherent in modelling assumptions, particularly based upon such slim (time-wise) data, and of such partial (far more available and accurate from cities in the West - which don't accurately reflect areas away from cities) - they are vilified and called fools, as "being deluded by their anti-scientific bias and/or their blissful ignorance."

So, those who just smirk and sarcastically shout, "global warming deniers!" - please, instead, intelligently address some of these things (above) that are known facts and that bring considerable doubts into any supposed "proof" of what has been going on with the climate. Because if you don't do so, it tells me that you are merely clinging to a political or PC narrative, when you, yourself, haven't addressed the factual issues raised. There's a whole heck of a lot more "inconvenient truths" out there than Al Gore and co. are willing to acknowledge. Why?

[Morny]

[...] the idea that we can take partial statistics from the last 150 years and apply them accurately to a 4.5 billion year old planet is laughable [...]

If climate science actually did what you suggest here, I would agree with your concerns.

Are you you sure you drank your Tennessee Honey shots, before seeing what climate science actually says about climate change over millions of years? Reading for comprehension is difficult, if you're gagging over thoughts of Al Gore.

For motivation, maybe think about what our children and grandchildren will face, if we don't get this right.

[melanie]

yeah, scientists have no idea what they are talking about.
Leading, world renowned scientists with degrees and masters in the field across the globe with studies and data that has been deemed irrefutable by the general consensus by the leading minds in the field are pulling ya leg.

Priceless sarcasm. Fortunately, we (the average person) don't have to rely on scientific consensus.

With a little effort, we can understand and evaluate for ourselves the global warming evidence.

The biggest hurdle may be temporarily suppressing any nightmarish gag-reflex that Al Gore might be correct. (Most here might find helpful first knocking down a double shot of Tennessee Honey.) Then, the easy part is taking a little time to understand the climate scientists' argument. Believing the argument is not necessary, just understanding is.

One more thing ... Chancellor Palpatine answers Anakin's question about where to learn how to save others from death with: "Not from a Jedi." Similarly, you can learn about climate science, ... but not from a climate denier.

Our children and grandchildren will thank you for your effort.

[melanie]

yeah, scientists have no idea what they are talking about.
Leading, world renowned scientists with degrees and masters in the field across the globe with studies and data that has been deemed irrefutable by the general consensus by the leading minds in the field are pulling ya leg.

Priceless sarcasm. Fortunately, we (the average person) don't have to rely on scientific consensus.

With a little effort, we can understand and evaluate for ourselves the global warming evidence.

The biggest hurdle may be temporarily suppressing any nightmarish gag-reflex that Al Gore might be correct. (Most here might find helpful first knocking down a double shot of Tennessee Honey.) Then, the easy part is taking a little time to understand the climate scientists' argument. Believing the argument is not necessary, just understanding is.

One more thing ... Chancellor Palpatine answers Anakin's question about where to learn how to save others from death with: "Not from a Jedi." Similarly, you can learn about climate science, ... but not from a climate denier.

Our children and grandchildren will thank you for your effort.

Morny I think you may have misunderstood my intent
By saying the leading climate scientists have irrefutable evidence I meant in support of Global warming.
I agree that we are dealing with is the most pressing issue bar none in urgency and long term implications. The future of this planet for our children and grandchildren is of paramount importance. Politics and propaganda can never substitute honest research. There will always be 'facts' funded to produce such. The tobacco industry also for decades had their data and 'proof' funded by the industry to produce the desired result.
You cannot intectually and with integrity look at the magnitude of data, the over riding evidence, the backing of by far majority of the leading experts in the field and not come to an honest conclusion. Yes there will be an article, an 'expert' with a published piece on the hog wash of climate change as there are also the same articles about the proof of the Earth being flat, that man never walked on the moon and that cholesterol is actually good for us.
Finding an article on the internet that supports a view does not equate to evidence.
Science, peer supported data, analysis and empirical evidence equates to evidence and the evidence unequivocally supports all reports of climate change.
It will be our grandchildren who suffer if we don't wake up

[RickD]

yeah, scientists have no idea what they are talking about.
Leading, world renowned scientists with degrees and masters in the field across the globe with studies and data that has been deemed irrefutable by the general consensus by the leading minds in the field are pulling ya leg.

Priceless sarcasm. Fortunately, we (the average person) don't have to rely on scientific consensus.

With a little effort, we can understand and evaluate for ourselves the global warming evidence.

The biggest hurdle may be temporarily suppressing any nightmarish gag-reflex that Al Gore might be correct. (Most here might find helpful first knocking down a double shot of Tennessee Honey.) Then, the easy part is taking a little time to understand the climate scientists' argument. Believing the argument is not necessary, just understanding is.

One more thing ... Chancellor Palpatine answers Anakin's question about where to learn how to save others from death with: "Not from a Jedi." Similarly, you can learn about climate science, ... but not from a climate denier.

Our children and grandchildren will thank you for your effort.

Morny I think you may have misunderstood my intent
By saying the leading climate scientists have irrefutable evidence I meant in support of Global warming.
I agree that we are dealing with is the most pressing issue bar none in urgency and long term implications. The future of this planet for our children and grandchildren is of paramount importance. Politics and propaganda can never substitute honest research. There will always be 'facts' funded to produce such. The tobacco industry also for decades had their data and 'proof' funded by the industry to produce the desired result.
You cannot intectually and with integrity look at the magnitude of data, the over riding evidence, the backing of by far majority of the leading experts in the field and not come to an honest conclusion. Yes there will be an article, an 'expert' with a published piece on the hog wash of climate change as there are also the same articles about the proof of the Earth being flat, that man never walked on the moon and that cholesterol is actually good for us.
Finding an article on the internet that supports a view does not equate to evidence.
Science, peer supported data, analysis and empirical evidence equates to evidence and the evidence unequivocally supports all reports of climate change.
It will be our grandchildren who suffer if we don't wake up

[melanie]

yeah, scientists have no idea what they are talking about.
Leading, world renowned scientists with degrees and masters in the field across the globe with studies and data that has been deemed irrefutable by the general consensus by the leading minds in the field are pulling ya leg.

Priceless sarcasm. Fortunately, we (the average person) don't have to rely on scientific consensus.

With a little effort, we can understand and evaluate for ourselves the global warming evidence.

The biggest hurdle may be temporarily suppressing any nightmarish gag-reflex that Al Gore might be correct. (Most here might find helpful first knocking down a double shot of Tennessee Honey.) Then, the easy part is taking a little time to understand the climate scientists' argument. Believing the argument is not necessary, just understanding is.

One more thing ... Chancellor Palpatine answers Anakin's question about where to learn how to save others from death with: "Not from a Jedi." Similarly, you can learn about climate science, ... but not from a climate denier.

Our children and grandchildren will thank you for your effort.

Morny I think you may have misunderstood my intent
By saying the leading climate scientists have irrefutable evidence I meant in support of Global warming.
I agree that we are dealing with is the most pressing issue bar none in urgency and long term implications. The future of this planet for our children and grandchildren is of paramount importance. Politics and propaganda can never substitute honest research. There will always be 'facts' funded to produce such. The tobacco industry also for decades had their data and 'proof' funded by the industry to produce the desired result.
You cannot intectually and with integrity look at the magnitude of data, the over riding evidence, the backing of by far majority of the leading experts in the field and not come to an honest conclusion. Yes there will be an article, an 'expert' with a published piece on the hog wash of climate change as there are also the same articles about the proof of the Earth being flat, that man never walked on the moon and that cholesterol is actually good for us.
Finding an article on the internet that supports a view does not equate to evidence.
Science, peer supported data, analysis and empirical evidence equates to evidence and the evidence unequivocally supports all reports of climate change.
It will be our grandchildren who suffer if we don't wake up

Haha a thought provoking response

[Morny]

Morny I think you may have misunderstood my intent

I don't think so. I've been an active climate change advocate for 2 decades. I interpreted your post that "scientists have no idea what they are talking about" as justified sarcasm, albeit directed at an unappreciative audience. Yes?

My framing the climate problem as impacting our children and grandchildren seems to be the necessary 1st step in any climate discussion. Although for climate change, as with defending evolution, I'm always willing to take the 2nd step of ensuring understanding of the theory, and the 3rd step of weighing the evidence.

[RickD]

Anyone who has done the least bit of research into the subject, realizes the earth's climate is changing.

What percentage of that change, if any, is caused by man?

Has the earth's climate always been in a state of change?

Is climate change a "built in" way of helping the keep the planet as a place to sustain life?

Pay someone millions of dollars to make a study favorable to the desired results, and you'll get whatever results you want.

Anyone who doesn't believe scientists, or anyone else, can be bought, is living with his head up his keister.

[Morny]

Pay someone millions of dollars to make a study favorable to the desired results, and you'll get whatever results you want.

Anyone who doesn't believe scientists, or anyone else, can be bought, is living with his head up his keister.

The innate critical thinking skill of the average person is remarkable.

For example, with some work and practice of course, those skills can easily determine that the claims of the Heartland Institute are ridiculous, and those of the National Academy of Sciences are not.

Understand both sides of a claim and the corresponding evidence, and the validity of almost any claim is within the average person's reach.

Knowing whether a scientist is bought is not necessary!

Albert Einstein - The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.