Started By
Message
locked post

While we were sleeping on CNN, the climate mafia was caught tampering with evidence...

Posted on 7/5/17 at 10:30 pm
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38274 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 10:30 pm
AGAIN!

quote:

It’s called The Ministry of Climate Truth – Erasing The Satellite Data and tells a story so shameful that if the mainstream media ever did their job, none of the shysters involved would ever be able to show their heads in public again.


quote:

Essentially, it’s about how the alarmist science community – the Climate Mafia, if you will – bullied a science data gatekeeper into tampering with the evidence in order to suit their criminal agenda.

One day, the data showed mild warming. The next – hey presto! – it showed dramatically increased warming. Here is the before:




And here's the after



quote:

This is #fakenews on stilts. Most fake news generators content themselves with making up stories that just aren’t true. But the Climate Mafia doesn’t mess around with mere lies: it actually goes a step further by tampering with the nature of reality itself… Here’s how the Climate Mafia are boasting about their victory in one of their online propaganda journals.

Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record. After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998.

This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009. This story would definitely be huge if true because the satellite temperature datasets are one of the main pieces of evidence used by climate skeptics to support their argument that the whole global warming scare has been overdone. Because satellites show much less global warming than the surface temperature datasets it supports the skeptics’ longstanding contentions that


quote:

a) the surface temperature datasets have been adjusted – aka rigged – to the point of meaninglessness by corrupt scientists

b) dramatic warming isn’t actually happening. It has just been made to look that way by people with a vested interest in promoting the AGW scam.

So what reason do we have to doubt the word of the expert responsible for these adjustments, a guy by the name of Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)? After all, it’s not like he didn’t provide a plausible-looking scientific justification for it all.

“Correcting for problems caused by the decaying of satellites.” Yup. We’ve all been there haven’t we? One minute you’re heading innocently down Highway One to look at the cute sea otters, the next you’ve somehow strayed over the Niagara Falls. Your stupid satnav failed to take those pesky “problems caused by the decaying of satellites” into account. And until now, no scientist was clever enough to notice…

Well it is a possibility, I suppose.


quote:

But as Tony Heller points out there are several good reasons why there’s a distinctive rat-like smell about the whole enterprise.

One is that this exactly what Heller predicted two years ago would happen: Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.

UAH, by the way, refers to University of Alabama, Huntsville – which is the only other satellite temperature gatekeeper (and, as of this week, the only credible one) in the world run by two skeptics John Christy and Roy Spencer. The reason they are skeptics is because the data they maintain gives them good reason to be skeptical: viz, while the (heavily-adjusted) surface temperature data sets show dramatic warming, their (more reliable) satellite data does not.

Marvel for yourself at the divergence:




quote:

Now do you understand why the Climate Mafia were so keen to nobble those pesky satellites? They weren’t telling the right lies.

OK. So we’ve established a motive. But that still doesn’t necessarily prove that a crime has been committed. How do we know for certain that the surface temperature datasets aren’t a more accurate gauge of global warming and that – therefore – Carl Mears’s adjustments aren’t a fair representation of reality? Well, here’s a massive clue: Here is the December 2016 global climate record according to NOAA based on their surface “measurements”.




quote:

Note how one of the places showing unusual warming – “record warmest” no less – is in Central Africa. Yet, by spooky coincidence, this is also one of the places where there are ZERO thermometer readings.




quote:

Can you imagine a more brazen piece of fabrication than that? NOAA – and NASA which uses the same data – are quite literally making up their own climate evidence. (Oh and by the way – check for yourself at Real Climate Science – the satellites show no anomalous warming in Central Africa in December ’16)

But there’s one more major giveaway which gives us cause to doubt RSS’s sudden shift on climate change: the fact that before making these apparently necessary adjustments, Carl Mears didn’t get his paper peer-reviewed by the two people in the world most qualified to assess it: John Christy and Roy Spencer.

What we have here, in other words, is #fakenews on stilts. Most fake news generators content themselves with making up stories that just aren’t true. But the Climate Mafia doesn’t mess around with mere lies: it actually goes a step further by tampering with the nature of reality itself… Why did Mears cave? Because that’s the nature of Groupthink. If you don’t pay lip service to the Green Goddess, you are ostracised as a heretic – so it’s much easier to play along for a quiet life.

Why don’t more people know about the scale of the fraud going on in climate science right now? Probably because it’s so epic and brazen it seems just too implausible to be credible.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that one of the people who does know what it is go on – I don’t know who is briefing him but whoever it is is so on point he could be me – is Donald Trump.


Can any of you futuristic 32-D weather warlocks explain yourselves on this one?

LINK
This post was edited on 7/5/17 at 10:31 pm
Posted by EKG
Houston, TX
Member since Jun 2010
44017 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 10:38 pm to


This looks like the global version of the Trump/Clinton election results:

Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38274 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 10:40 pm to
Lmao
Posted by TerryDawg03
The Deep South
Member since Dec 2012
15713 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 10:43 pm to
This could be the biggest wall of text in TD history.
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38274 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 10:44 pm to
I cited the entire article so you wouldn't have to do anything. So much for helping out the lazy arse.
Posted by hawgfaninc
https://youtu.be/torc9P4-k5A
Member since Nov 2011
46432 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 10:49 pm to
quote:

Why don’t more people know about the scale of the fraud going on in climate science right now? Probably because it’s so epic and brazen it seems just too implausible to be credible.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that one of the people who does know what it is go on – I don’t know who is briefing him but whoever it is is so on point he could be me – is Donald Trump.

Posted by narddogg81
Vancouver
Member since Jan 2012
19699 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:03 pm to
Do you know how they get their surface measurements where there are no actual instruments? They literally take data points from their model for the same location and time and insert it into their measured data set just as if it were a real measurement
Posted by Iosh
Bureau of Interstellar Immigration
Member since Dec 2012
18941 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:03 pm to
quote:

“Correcting for problems caused by the decaying of satellites.” Yup. We’ve all been there haven’t we? One minute you’re heading innocently down Highway One to look at the cute sea otters, the next you’ve somehow strayed over the Niagara Falls. Your stupid satnav failed to take those pesky “problems caused by the decaying of satellites” into account. And until now, no scientist was clever enough to notice…
So his argument against the RSS 4.0 dataset is to just... sarcastically claim orbital decay of satellites isn't a real thing that needs to be accounted for? And then pivot into a random attack on a completely different dataset (NOAA) by putting up two maps and claiming one is fake because it has data while the other doesn't, when they're displaying different things? Anomalies from 30-year baseline vs full-database percentiles means some locations will have enough historical data to validate in one but not the other. Whatta fraud!

EDIT: Damn, I didn't expect to find a thorough debunking with doi citations on stack but I guess it's good for something other than stealing bits of code
This post was edited on 7/5/17 at 11:09 pm
Posted by mmcgrath
Indianapolis
Member since Feb 2010
35396 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:07 pm to
Trump, one of the biggest climate change deniers, is POTUS, correct? How does that jive?
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38274 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:10 pm to
quote:


Trump, one of the biggest climate change deniers, is POTUS, correct? How does that jive?


Pretty well.

Paris has been run over by stinky now.
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38274 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:12 pm to
No he's using NOAA and NASA charts from, you know NOAA and NASA to call bullshite.

Thinking anyone is going to take this seriously from now on is laughable.

But I appreciate you the alarmist link that you shared.
Posted by Iosh
Bureau of Interstellar Immigration
Member since Dec 2012
18941 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:14 pm to
quote:

No he's using NOAA and NASA charts from, you know NOAA and NASA to call bullshite.
And I'm saying there's no "bullshite" when the maps are using different measurements, which is obvious to everyone who knows the difference between an anomaly and a percentile.

He also doesn't actually address the RSS changes beyond snarking about orbital "decay" as though it's some exotic concept that RSS invented for their paper and not basic goddamn physics.
This post was edited on 7/5/17 at 11:16 pm
Posted by narddogg81
Vancouver
Member since Jan 2012
19699 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:15 pm to
quote:

climate change deniers
anthropogenic warming carries the weight of religious conviction for the left, that's why you have to speak in terms of zealotry and unbelievers. Skepticism is supposed to be part of the scientific method, not conformity and group think
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38274 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:16 pm to
You know as well as I do, that they don't have enough surface thermostats to get a true value of an average temperature.

How many does the continent of Antarctica have?

I appreciate the sentiment; but AGAIN, RSS's data have not been peer reviewed. Which is the fundamental key in the scientific method.

Why is that?
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38274 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:17 pm to
quote:

And I'm saying there's no "bullshite" when the maps are using different measurements


Why would you use two different measurements?

Because of the orbital decay?
Posted by Iosh
Bureau of Interstellar Immigration
Member since Dec 2012
18941 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:19 pm to
quote:

I appreciate the sentiment; but AGAIN, RSS's data have not been peer reviewed. Which is the fundamental key in the scientific method.

Why is that?
RSS 4.0 was peer reviewed. Delingpole's beef appears to be that they were not peer reviewed by two specific people of his choosing. That's not how this works! You don't get to pick the peers, in fact most of the time you don't even know who they are.
Posted by Iosh
Bureau of Interstellar Immigration
Member since Dec 2012
18941 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:20 pm to
quote:

Why would you use two different measurements?

Because of the orbital decay?
NOAA's graphs don't have jack shite to do with RSS or orbital decay, they're a dataset of surface thermometers and RSS is satellites. The author just threw that up and yelled SMOKE BOMB because he very clearly couldn't grasp the substance of the RSS 4.0 paper.
This post was edited on 7/5/17 at 11:21 pm
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38274 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:24 pm to
Ok, so the RSS paper has to do with orbital decay. Great. It hasn't been peer reviewed.

But are you trying to tell us that the orbital decay for a satellite with how strong the earth's gravitational pull is, is big enough to have a net increase of 33% in SURFACE temperature over a two year period?



To think what the doctors of physics are going to do to this study when they get a hold of it.

But you keep using your big words and Muh Physics to make you sound like you know what the frick you are taking about.
This post was edited on 7/5/17 at 11:25 pm
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38274 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:25 pm to
And NOAA's graphs are still bogus...
Posted by Iosh
Bureau of Interstellar Immigration
Member since Dec 2012
18941 posts
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:26 pm to
quote:

Ok, so the RSS paper has to do with orbital decay. Great. It hasn't been peer reviewed.
It has. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal. This isn't about big words and Muh Physics this is about basic reading comprehension. Delingpole's article says this:
quote:

Carl Mears didn’t get his paper peer-reviewed by the two people in the world most qualified to assess it: John Christy and Roy Spencer.
In other words he doesn't claim it wasn't peer-reviewed, he just claims it wasn't peer-reviewed by two specific guys.

Read better.
This post was edited on 7/5/17 at 11:27 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 7Next 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