Global Warming: Fake DATA!

[Philip]

OK, this article is in the Daily mail - a tabloid yes - but the story is factual and revealing about those amongst the manipulative climate scammers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -data.html

This doesn't mean that climate change isn't occurring. It also doesn't mean man isn't the chief or partial cause IF it is occurring (at least per radical, man-caused warming - as climate is CONSTANTLY changing). Even though they well MIGHT be, those are currently uncertain / unproven things. Again, we SHOULD clean up our air and polluting outputs. But those who would sway what we can know through politics and manipulation, who would court vast billions of dollars for their assertions buttressed by data manipulations and worthless computer modelling - really, these are dangerous, unscrupulous people with an agenda that is not factually based.

[edwardmurphy]

And here's a response to the Daily Mail article. The TLDR version is that the Daily Mail is playing games with the numbers in order to mislead their readers and NOAA's data has been independently verified by other scientists and is extremely accurate.

For example, From the DM:



And a response from actual scientists:

Rose’s article presents a deeply misleading graph where he shows an arbitrary offset between NOAA’s data and the Hadley land/ocean dataset. This is an artefact of the use of different baselines; Hadley’s “0C” value is relative to the average temperature from 1961-1990, while NOAA’s is relative to the average temperature from 1901-2000 (a period which includes the colder early 20th century).

This comparison ends up being spurious, because each record uses a different baseline period to define their temperature anomaly.

Here's that same graph, this time using a common baseline:



See? Present the data honestly and the "anomaly" disappears.

Phil, if there was really smoking gun evidence that man-made climate change was a hoax, or even that it was no big deal, it would be plastered everywhere, not relegated to tabloid rags. It's just like the fake news about Hillary Clinton. If it was true it would be published by legitimate sources and supported by real data. The people jabbering about massive conspiracies always seem to forget that there are powerful people on both sides of the fight.

[PaulSacramento]

One of the issues with the climate change data is that it needs to be "massaged" to be accurate because of the volatile nature of the climate ( one good volcanic eruption changes everything) and that is why the predicting models are never accurate without said massaging.
That said, the accusations of data tampering are, well, unacceptable and need to be addressed in a convincing manner.

Here is a good site that give both sides of the argument:

http://climatechange.procon.org/

[Philip]

Ed: Phil, if there was really smoking gun evidence that man-made climate change was a hoax, or even that it was no big deal, it would be plastered everywhere

No! Because climate change is always going on, with many natural cycles. So, you can't really PROVE it EITHER way. Our data isn't comprehensive or lengthy enough, and the models make many assumptions. Statistically, small bumps in data utilized wrongly can lead to highly inaccurate conclusions.

Note that I emphasized that GW isn't necessarily a HOAX, and that it may well be a man-made phenomena. Or maybe not. Or maybe to whatever degree - perhaps even to a dangerous one. I also emphasized that we need to take care of the environment and air. But that some (including scientists) have cherrypicked data and massaged it - that's not speculation. And I can guarantee you many who jumped on the bandwagon - especially in years back, did so without really knowing the truth. And our huge problems are, we might have correlations that are happenstance, that they happen to be occurring during a warmer period or of flunctuations. That is entirely possible. Because 150 years of incomplete data tells us nothing with a planet 4.5 billion years old. Ice cores - same thing - we've always had warmer and colder periods, WAY before the industrial revolution.

And the globalist global warmers will merely use the vast billions generated by their carbon taxes for many things that won't do one thing for any supposed warming - not until we can shut down third world and other coal-fired plants - which China, etc. is building as fast as they can. AS we can't currently KNOW what is a cycle correlation, and what is man-induced, nor to what degree, why the rush to ridicule those who have a reasonably based skepticism. How would ANYONE truly know we're not in some natural cycle? As the cycles have always come and gone - why not NOW? What is 150 years of data - especially incomplete data - of a planet that is 4.5 billion years old? I mean, 150 years or so of partial data is like a few weeks of data, when speaking of such an old planet.

So, I'm agnostic as to what it going on with the climate. That's not anti-scientific, it's just I'm cautiously skeptical. If earth had not always had such cycles, I wouldn't be nearly as dubious. But IF we are the cause of a dangerous warming, I'm not very confident that we'll be able to significantly combat it due to the fact of global political agendas, and that governments are so often only concerned with next quarters numbers. Cause if such dangerous warming is occurring due to man, it's not as if we can just flip a switch, throw money and manpower at it, and suddenly it starts to reverse.

[abelcainsbrother]

It is just like with everything,if the media reports it is true and the left is pushing it? Believe the opposite.It is no different than them claiming Trump cannot win and that Hillary is going to win and they had all of the so-called experts with evidence(polls) to back it up and yet were wrong.How many times did you hear Trump cannot win?How scared did you get at the thought of it? I believe many of you who voted for Trump thought Hillary was going to win because of the news media reporting why Trump won't win and all of the experts explaining why.Yet the experts were wrong and the alt-right media was right.

[edwardmurphy]

The guy was right one time about one thing and we'll never hear the end of it...

[PaulSacramento]

The guy was right one time about one thing and we'll never hear the end of it...

Actually Ed, the issue was that the mainstream media kept, unanimously, stating that there was no way he was gonna win and they and all their experts were 100% wrong.

I remember someone saying that anytime you get 97" of scientists agreeing on anything, you should look into it.
Do we want to go over the many, many times that the unanimous consensus of scientists of the time was shown to be wrong?

Personally, I do believe we impact climate changes, how can we not?
That said, climate change is having a hard time keeping the label of science, why?

It's predictions and models are NOT accurate without manipulation of data.

Science must be:
Repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments


If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific.

[Philip]

One thing is certain, IF we have significantly threatened out home with our industries and pollutants, figuring out how to reverse it would be of utmost importance. But that's not gonna happen until there is a worldwide consensus - first from science that such a threat is clearly threatening us (there is still a level of doubt concerning causation). Then, there would need to be a clear course of necessary action - WORLDWIDE. If we spend money on the wrong things, we'll only delay truly needed efforts while taking resources away. But a whole lot more certainty is needed for such extensive consensus to occur - particularly so poorer nations reverse some of what they are doing. And the politics, power and money schemers threaten to put in place things that may well have no real value in combating the threat. And does the level of consensus come too late to reverse things? Will an entire world of industrial nations act prudently as one?

What I see is prudent is we clean up our air and pollutants as much as possible NOW. That seems to be smart, whether or not we're damaging the planet with GW. Yep, that's gonna be costly. But as for the globalists who want to control what needs to be done, what money needs to be thrown at it, that asserts what groups should be controlling the regulatory and finances of it - they truly scare me, because so many have hidden agendas. And feel-good initiatives won't necessarily truly address the potential threat. So, while I think there is still room to think that the earth's normal cycles could account for the existing data, and while we KNOW data HAS been massaged and manipulated (to whatever degrees), it still doesn't mean we can be sure we've not negatively impacted the planet, nor can we know to what levels. And, depending upon where we might be in the planet's natural cycle, the impact could be more pronounced, and yet even potentially on the wane (or not). So we could pointlessly throw vast billions pointlessly away. There is a whole lot of complexity to correctly understanding this issue. Those who think the solutions are simple and obvious, are deluding themselves.

[melanie]

.

[melanie]

The issues that face this planet cannot be limited to global warming. Yea, I know how significant it is but the damage we are doing isn't limited to the atmosphere. The impact directly to vegetation and animal species is profound.. Soil, coral reefs, water quality, Marine life, and across the animal kingdom.
We share this planet with all inhabitants, when God gave us domain it was never to destroy.

[abelcainsbrother]

Another reason to doubt man's ability to effect global warming is the fact that we have people pushing the threat of global warming,telling us we need to take steps now and stop polluting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this threat has been used to stifle America's economy while China is not held to the same standards and are allowed to pollute the atmosphere.This tells us that there is no real threat and this is just about politics in America. If it was as serious as a threat as we've heard China would not be polluting like they are. It does us no good if only countries in the west take steps to prevent global warming while China is allowed to pollute the atmosphere. America has taken steps to not pollute and we clean up after ourselves but China does'nt at all.

[Philip]

Abe: Another reason to doubt man's ability to effect global warming is the fact that we have people pushing the threat of global warming,telling us we need to take steps now and stop polluting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this threat has been used to stifle America's economy while China is not held to the same standards and are allowed to pollute the atmosphere.

Well, ya don't make a decision upon who is saying whatever - be they left, right, believers or naysayers. We need to only assess this based upon factual data accurately assessed - or as close to it as possible. That means we don't listen to the screaming crazies on ANY side. Because, let's be clear, the naysayers are potentially just as dangerous as the present true believers and the globalist left (on GW). It is possible that the screaming crazy believers actually happen to be correct, even if their understandings and reasoning behind their thinking is purely bogus. The naysayers also are operating upon insufficient data and understandings. If we only listen to the naysayers without sufficient verification - well, what they are WRONG? Which brings me to an important qualification.

There is a huge difference, concerning supposed GW, betwixt a naysayer and a SKEPTIC! To me, without more confirmation, better data, more accurate modeling, properly applied and sufficient data, and knowledgeable, prudent people coming to WHATEVER consensus, then I'll remain a skeptic. But with naysayers and true believers - as BOTH tend to have their minds are already made up, to me, both camps are filled with very dangerous people. And, we always, ALWAYS must be wary of studies funded by energy entities! That's just common sense.

Abe: This tells us that there is no real threat and this is just about politics in America. If it was as serious as a threat as we've heard China would not be polluting like they are.

Abe, newsflash: Chinese politicians are no different than others of their kind around the world. They are only concerned with the next election cycle. And when getting elected means making decisions to presently deploy resources where they are most popularly received and perceived NOW, they'll not likely worry too much about some unproven disaster projected for the distant future. A lot of those politicians won't even be alive in 15 or 20 years - think they are worried that people of the future will be upset because they didn't appropriately respond to some theories - even ones that were wildly popular. Nope! Their worried about the next election and votes.

Abe: It does us no good if only countries in the west take steps to prevent global warming while China is allowed to pollute the atmosphere. America has taken steps to not pollute and we clean up after ourselves but China has'nt at all.

Well, factor in many other countries, and you're right - supreme sacrifice in just certain pockets of the West would be insufficient, if we are catastrophically damaging our planet.

Here's the views of Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe, with a scientific perspective: http://www.reasons.org/articles/what-ab ... al-warming

[PaulSacramento]

Hugh actually hits the button right here:

The bottom line here is that there are dozens of physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to both heating and cooling the planet. When any one of these factors gets out of balance with the others, Earth is at risk of losing its optimal climate for human civilization. This delicate balancing act of multiple and diverse natural processes and human activities gives us reason to be cautious. But to suggest that we can stop global warming simply by cutting back on fossil fuel combustion and altering our industrial processes is naive at best. If we ignore one or more of certain mechanisms that contribute to either global warming or cooling, our attempted solutions could actually make matters worse.

[Philip]

What if our collective "solutions" make things worse? Or things that might naturally moderate on their own?

[PaulSacramento]

I think that NO ONE disagrees that we MUST be more responsible in how we treat the earth.
And we are.
Not everyone else though.