- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:12 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:12 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
AND THERE WERE EMAILS!!!!
#flatearthsociety
#flatearthsociety
1
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:44 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Breitbart, LOL
read the article, not one sourced paper refuting the numbers just an opinion of Jennifer Marohasy and the author...a biologist funded by an investment trust and a blogger.
nice work there Hail, carry on the fight.
you right wing deniers really fricking suck at sourcing,vetting information before you post.
read the article, not one sourced paper refuting the numbers just an opinion of Jennifer Marohasy and the author...a biologist funded by an investment trust and a blogger.
nice work there Hail, carry on the fight.
you right wing deniers really fricking suck at sourcing,vetting information before you post.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:48 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:You left wing fricktwits really are comical when you think allowing scientists, regulators, and bureaucrats to run are lives will heal the earth. LOL
you right wing deniers really fricking suck at sourcing,vetting information before you post.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:51 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:Do you know that it is a myth that people ever thought the earth was flat? I have no idea why this is a saying.
#flatearthsociety
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:01 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Here's another question: Why are we supposed to assume that these "researchers" are not left wing hacks themselves, but MUST assume that the few that challenge them are right wing "deniers"?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:34 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
ou left wing fricktwits really are comical when you think allowing scientists, regulators, and bureaucrats to run are lives will heal the earth. LOL
yeah the corporations/other nations around the globe have done such a wonderful job of self regulation and keeping our planet clean and cool such that warming is now basically irreversible.
I love the last century of Republican arguments
Social Security, communism is here, its the end of our way of life
Lead in Gas, its too expensive to remove, it will end our way of life
Tobacco, nope its not cancerous...oops
Voting Rights, you gotta pass this literacy test here bud
Ozone Layer, omg you cant take R12 away it will ruin our way of life
The ACA, never reach the signups needed, 5 million people will lose their insurance (1.9 lost theirs to better policies), omg it will ruin our economy
Global Warming, pfft its all a conspiracy from 10's of thousands of scientist funded secretly by government bureaucrats to eek out a few tax dollars to redistribute wealth, not at all actual concern for the future of our planet with an evidence backed critical message.
like i said carry on tho
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:36 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Here's another question: Why are we supposed to assume that these "researchers" are not left wing hacks themselves, but MUST assume that the few that challenge them are right wing "deniers"?
because its a consensus of over 97 percent of scientist within relevant fields of study humans are directly responsible for climate change.
how bout you message Fox news and tell them to only grant 3 percent of the deniers message since that would be a representative sample
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:37 pm to Cruiserhog
Oh good, the partisan pissing match has started. For a second this thread was in danger of being about science for almost a whole page.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:47 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:Surely you don't think social securtiy is immune from valid criticism, right?
Social Security, communism is here, its the end of our way of life
quote:
Lead in Gas, its too expensive to remove, it will end our way of life
quote:
Ozone Layer, omg you cant take R12 away it will ruin our way of life
Good to see you, in these two examples above, reveal yourself as someone who assumes individuals don't care about their own well-being and need a third-party to protect them from their own stupidity.
quote:That was a new deal southern democratic initiative.
Voting Rights, you gotta pass this literacy test here bud
quote:It's cancerous, yet people still use it. This is an individual choice.
Tobacco, nope its not cancerous...oops
quote:No one ever denied that the ACA would lead to an increase in the insurance rate. The issue was that is raised premiums for people who already had plans, made certain plans illegal, and does nothing to control costs.
The ACA, never reach the signups needed, 5 million people will lose their insurance (1.9 lost theirs to better policies), omg it will ruin our economy
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:54 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Why cannot everyone be satisfied to debate an issue with the real facts and not try to manipulate the outcome by throwing in extraneous and/or misleading shite?
dammit to everyone who engages in this shite
Have an upvote! I regret that I have but one upvote to give......
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:56 pm to Iosh
quote:
If you want a legit challenge to the IPCC consensus, your best horse right now is low sensitivity and ocean heat. There is a growing sense among climate scientists that the models done fricked up when it comes to the ocean, although nobody is 100% on how (or how badly) just yet.
This. We really do not know the magnitude of the "problem" just yet. But if we are all adults about it, we may arrive at an reasonable estimation one day.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:57 pm to GeeOH
quote:
Take reading from around the globe at 10000 different locations at the exact same time every day, or 5 times a day, average those out...repeat daily and build a database to compare to with later results....profit.
You and I both know this is and has been done for decades and those numbers don't serve the liberal agenda or they would be used.
OBVIOUSLY NOT A SCIENTIST OR AN ENGINEER
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:57 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:It's only because your black.
* that moment when the room turns hostile and against one *
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:03 pm to GeeOH
quote:
Why in the frick can't they just measure the temperature every day in every country and get an average temp on Earth? Why is the ANY manipulation of numbers at all?
To try to give a simplified answer to your question: Because they are using existing data not future data, and it hasn't been collected that way, for that purpose. And a reason they cannot begin a program to collect that data, other than the obvious logistical hurdles, is that the sample size needed to draw statistically relevant conclusions is large. This means a long-term measurement campaign of 50 - 100 years is needed. Even then, you might want to include the historical record to maximize your data points and then corrections are in order.
It really is standard statistical methodology.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:04 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Ozone Layer, omg you cant take R12 away it
So explain why R12 was banned?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:19 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:Or not.
It really is standard statistical methodology.
One could certainly argue, as you do, that the data manipulation is standard statistical methodology.
It's a fair claim.
The challenge is, it is data manipulation. PERIOD!
So the question arises, manipulation to what end.
Manipulation driven by what motivation?
Could be the motives are pure as driven snow.
Unfortunately, concurrent warmest actions do not support that conclusion.
Publications daring to carry contrarian theses are berated as anathema. Scientists are treated similarly. Warmist concept is reduced to cliquish polling for consensus opinion, emotional hyperbole, and (in politically motivated instances like UN reports) duplicitous overstatement.
It is not behavior begetting trust when data is admittedly being "adjusted".
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:35 pm to NC_Tigah
I'm going to post the same two links I did in the last "adjustment" thread:
LINK
LINK
The first link contains the raw, unadjusted, average temperature for every single land record in the world. Not the Tmin. Not two stations. Not the Continental US. The entire world. GHCN is also pretty much the broadest possible universe of data; it's used by a lot of the big temperature series (with various quality control filters) and is over 7k stations by itself.
The second link (you have to scroll to FIG. 7) shows the trends for ICOADS, which is the similar raw data for the oceans. Again, globally, no adjustments for anything, even though it's obvious to even a retard that raw ICOADS data isn't valid, since the temperature didn't jump half a degree in WWII (temp readings switched to engine room intake around that time since ain't nobody got time to dip a bucket when Jerry's on the prowl).
In both cases, the global trend is steeper for raw data. Adjustments reduce it.
So you'll pardon me for not giving a single solitary shite about Steven Goddard's cherry-picked Dust Bowl Tmaxes in the Upper Midwest, or Jen Marohasy's two star pupil stations in New South Wales, or skeptic misconceptions about how grant money actually works (hint: it doesn't make scientists rich.)
LINK
LINK
The first link contains the raw, unadjusted, average temperature for every single land record in the world. Not the Tmin. Not two stations. Not the Continental US. The entire world. GHCN is also pretty much the broadest possible universe of data; it's used by a lot of the big temperature series (with various quality control filters) and is over 7k stations by itself.
The second link (you have to scroll to FIG. 7) shows the trends for ICOADS, which is the similar raw data for the oceans. Again, globally, no adjustments for anything, even though it's obvious to even a retard that raw ICOADS data isn't valid, since the temperature didn't jump half a degree in WWII (temp readings switched to engine room intake around that time since ain't nobody got time to dip a bucket when Jerry's on the prowl).
In both cases, the global trend is steeper for raw data. Adjustments reduce it.
So you'll pardon me for not giving a single solitary shite about Steven Goddard's cherry-picked Dust Bowl Tmaxes in the Upper Midwest, or Jen Marohasy's two star pupil stations in New South Wales, or skeptic misconceptions about how grant money actually works (hint: it doesn't make scientists rich.)
This post was edited on 8/27/14 at 4:39 pm
Posted on 8/27/14 at 10:40 pm to Iosh
quote:
In both cases, the global trend is steeper for raw data. Adjustments reduce it.
Thank you Iosh...someone else here that sources actual data...nice.
Dont forget to mention the classic Medieval Warm Period cherry pickin Iosh, they like to use that as well.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 10:50 pm to Born to be a Tiger
quote:conservative corporate lobbyist fought for years to avoid the banning of chlorofluorocarbons, same with lead, tobacco, acid rain
So explain why R12 was banned?
the reason I stopped watching Rush Limbaugh, and I quote, from his TV show years ago during this time.
'humans cant hurt the ozone because refrigerators cant get that high'
this entire century has been filled with fricking stupid Republican arguments about why we shouldnt do a thing, when after its all said and done, each of the conservative argument fell away to history, nothing happened, nothing collapsed, and the world was a better place for our children.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 11:08 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:Who's the other guy?
someone else here that sources actual data
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News