Started By
Message
locked post

Nearly ALL current global warming is fabricated: peer reviewed study finds

Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:11 am
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38239 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:11 am
quote:

Much of recent global warming has been fabricated by climate scientists to make it look more frightening, a study has found.

The peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician looked at the global average temperature datasets (GAST) which are used by climate alarmists to argue that recent years have been “the hottest evah” and that the warming of the last 120 years has been dramatic and unprecedented.


quote:

What they found is that these readings are “totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

That is, the adjusted data used by alarmist organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office differs so markedly from the original raw data that it cannot be trusted.

This chart gives you a good idea of the direction of the adjustments.




quote:

The blue bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted downwards to make it cooler; the red bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted upwards to make it warmer.

Note how most of the downward adjustments take place in the early twentieth century and most of the upward take place in the late twentieth century.

According to meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso, this has the effect of exaggerating the warming trend:

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments.”

“Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened.”

What this means, the report concludes, is that claims by NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office that the world is experiencing unprecedented and dramatic warming should be taken with a huge pinch of salt: they all use the same corrupted global average temperature (GAST) data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming.


How do you whoop a media conglomerate and a religion all in one week? W-I-N-N-I-N- G?[\link]

Copy of Dr Aleo's findings in his peer reviewed research.
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 12:13 am
Posted by Bullethead88
Half way between LSU and Tulane
Member since Dec 2009
4202 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:14 am to
germans. A long thread already.
Posted by fouldeliverer
Lannisport
Member since Nov 2008
13538 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:15 am to
Ah yes the prestigious scientific journal, Wordpress.
Posted by Vols&Shaft83
Throbbing Member
Member since Dec 2012
69896 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:17 am to
You bought the global warming myth?


Posted by RockyMtnTigerWDE
War Damn Eagle Dad!
Member since Oct 2010
105390 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:18 am to
keine Scheiße
Posted by djmicrobe
Planet Earth
Member since Jan 2007
4970 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:27 am to
The mid-1930's were some of the hottest recorded years in US history. 1998 was close. That graph is pure garbage.
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38239 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:33 am to
It's the data sets from NOAA, NASA, and the U.K. Met office.

This is what YOUR people have been using.



So, you are right. Pure garbage.
Posted by Pax Regis
Alabama
Member since Sep 2007
12926 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 1:01 am to
There's a reason the Midwest was referred to as the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. It was hot as frick with little rain.
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 1:37 am
Posted by Eurocat
Member since Apr 2004
15036 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 1:34 am to
A peer reviewed study is usually not two guys as in this case.

Posted by Bristol Dawg
God's Country
Member since Jul 2016
2934 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 1:59 am to
It's definitely voodoo science but these couple of guys don't qualify as a peer review either.
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38239 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 2:14 am to
quote:

It's definitely voodoo science but these couple of guys don't qualify as a peer review either.


From the article you never read:

quote:

According to meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso, this has the effect of exaggerating the warming trend:


Really?

They seem pretty fricking qualified to talk about it to me!

Here's Cato Institute's, Climate Specialist's wiki for you.

Link

So, a meteorologist, a statistician, and a climate specialist are just a couple of guys?



Dumb frick.
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 2:15 am
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38239 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 2:17 am to
quote:

A peer reviewed study is usually not two guys as in this case


No shite Sherlock. Plus it was more than TWO guys who wrote the damn thing.

BUT THEIR STUDY WAS PEER REVIEWED.

See how that works?

I swear we go through this peer reviewed shite in every thread about climate change.

quote:

The peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician looked at the global average temperature datasets (GAST) which are used by climate alarmists to argue that recent years have been “the hottest evah” and that the warming of the last 120 years has been dramatic and unprecedented.


The study was done by two scientists and a statistician. The study was THEN peer reviewed.

Reading comprehension is a bitch.
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 2:20 am
Posted by Tyrusrex
Member since Jul 2011
907 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 2:41 am to
The Cato Institute is one of the most biased sources for climate change there is.

LINK /
Posted by Tyrusrex
Member since Jul 2011
907 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 2:48 am to
here's some responsesfrom climate scientists:


And no, the paper isn't peer reviewed.
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 2:49 am
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38239 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 3:49 am to
quote:


The Cato Institute is one of the most biased sources for climate change there is.


As you cite Politifact.

Lmao

It's really a shame that you guys went and politicized this shite.
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38239 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:06 am to
Oh boy, you just don't get it do you.

You posted a link from This paper right here.

When, in fact, the OP is talking about This article here.

You see, there isn't a Thomas Karl listed as an author in the OP link; but this shite you want us to believe; is just conflating the two studies.

I think it's time you guys give up on the peer reviewed journals.

Some of you think; only certain people can read them and review them, you think authors who didn't even write the fricking thing somehow relates to what we are talking about, and others of you just simply cannot read.

We don't want to join your religion. It's okay. Go knock on someone else's door.



Then you cite something about Cato Institute a decade ago?

:ritflmao:
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 4:18 am
Posted by Bristol Dawg
God's Country
Member since Jul 2016
2934 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 5:54 am to
A few smart guys = peer reviewed to you. I'm agreeing with you at 2am and you're still calling me dumb. I think you have bigger issues than climate change.
Posted by roguetiger15
Member since Jan 2013
16150 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 6:00 am to
Annnnd Bristol dawg concedes
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
67690 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 6:47 am to
I'm so worn out with the climate change topic.

I don't care about it anymore.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123782 posts
Posted on 7/10/17 at 7:14 am to
quote:

That graph is pure garbage.
No.
But your understanding as to what it shows maybe garbage.
Jump to page
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 13
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 13Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram