re: Global warming - climate panel sees dire future

quote:

---

We have to change our culture.

---

How does this change the culture of India and China and the rest of the 3rd world to agree to our plan?

Or is that some of the aforementioned fairy dust

quote:

---

How does this change the culture of India and China and the rest of the 3rd world to agree to our plan?

---

If technology is developed and becomes cheaper and available, why wouldn't they use it? It's about investing in that tech. China is doing it and they'll lead the way, and that's a huge missed opportunity on our part.

quote:

---

How many people talking about the ‘scientific community’ in this thread can actually name a single scientist and tell us about his background without first looking it up? And these are the people they believe in blindly.

---

Huh? You know science isn't sports or politics, right? This isn't a team we're routing for, it's where we think the most correct answers come from. I can't name anyone that works at google, but I know that it can provide certain information. I can't name anyone that works and St. Jude but I support them fighting kid cancer.

It's weird that this argument has become so tribal and nonsensical that it's more about discrediting people than actual arguments. fricking christ.

The vast majority of high quality long-term temperature data comes from the US, and in fact much of the planet has little or no long-term temperature data. Because of the poor coverage, it is doubtful that the published global temperature record has any scientific validity. The US is one of very few places with reliable temperature data.



In 1986, NASA’s top climate scientist James Hansen predicted the US would heat up 4-6 degrees by 2020 (next year.)





But three years later, NOAA reported that there had been no warming in the US over the past century



And by 1999, Hansen’s US temperature data (left graph below) showed cooling since the 1940s.

quote:

---

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

---

This was very disturbing to both NASA and NOAA. Their CO2 warming theory was failing badly, so they simply changed the data, turning cooling into warming. This happened at the same time Michael Mann was erasing the Medieval Warm Period.



The blue line below shows the five year mean of the average annual temperature at all NOAA United States Historical Climatology Network Stations. The red line shows the graph they release to the public, which has been highly altered to create the appearance of warming – which does not exist in the thermometer data.



If they believe there is error in the data, the correct way to handle it is to leave the data intact, and put error bars on it. Not alter the data and pass it to the public as if it represents the actual thermometer data.

The next graph shows the adjustments they are making, which creates a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering since the 1960s.



Plotted with atmospheric CO2 on the X-axis instead of time, it becomes apparent that the data is being altered precisely (R² = 0.97) to match global warming theory. The ultimate junk science.



Most of the recent data tampering has been due to simply making data up. In their monthly temperature data, they mark estimated (as opposed to measured) temperatures with a capital “E.” So far in 2019, sixty-one percent of the monthly temperature data is now estimated by a computer model, rather than actual measured thermometer data. The amount of fake data is up 500% since 30 years ago.



I grouped the NOAA adjusted temperatures into two groups:

Measured and adjusted (blue)
Estimated (red)
Almost all of the US warming since 1990 is due to fake data from computer models, which now makes up 60% of the data.



The fake data is running two degrees warmer than the measured adjusted data. Not hard to create warming when you are simply making the data up.



Climate scientists openly discussed getting rid of the 1940s warmth, and they did just that.



But even with all their data tampering, the fraudsters couldn’t come close to to Hansen’s six degrees warming by 2020. Of course they still have a few more months to heat the US up six degrees.



There is overwhelming evidence of fraud in NOAA and NASA’s handling of climate data, and it is very important they are held to account.

LINK

quote:

---

Huh? You know science isn't sports or politics, right? This isn't a team we're routing for,

---

Right.

The problem with "climate science" is they bastardize the scientific method.



They create computer models in step three, commit fraud in step 4, and allow fake news to execute step 6.

quote:

---

Seems like you are believing in people who are telling you things while making assumptions about their motivations.

---

It's a religious appeal to authority. Climate scientist are priest and are not to be questioned. They should be addressed as "Father" from henceforth.

quote:

---

GumboPot

---

Thanks for the link, and I mean that sincerely. This is some stuff I was unaware of and I will read through it, I promise.

quote:

---

That's not how religion or society works.

---

Fine.

quote:

---

We can't all expertise in everything so we each rely on experts in fields outside of our own.

---

Agree. But real experts expect and desire constructive criticism.

quote:

---

But this idea that every single climate scientist is working to trick you and undermine those poor fossil fuel companies is laughable.

---

"Every" climate scientist? I wouldn't agree with that. Several top climate scientists? Yes. They are working to alter temperature data to demonstrate that their is a correlation between CO2 and temperature rise and CO2 is the cause. That is a documented fact.

CO2 is the boogieman because it is a byproduct of using fossil fuel energy.

Politicians in government have a motivation to tax CO2 but need a reason.

Academia has the motivation to continue receiving climate change grants from the same politicians that want to make CO2 a boogieman to tax it.

Believe me, if academia presented data that is contrary to political wants their funds would dry up.

Wall Street wants to play broker between the federal government and utility companies buying and selling carbon credits. It's an awesome gig if you can get it. You make money on every transaction buying or selling.

Once the carbon credit market is created those costs get shifted from the utility companies to the people with increased energy costs.

Then the politicians step in again and appease the poor with energy subsidies to lock up a new voting base while the middle class gets shafted again.

All for what?

A damn hoax. The CO2 boogieman. The boogieman that if it did not exists we would be dead. The boogieman that is vital to life on earth.

quote:

---

undermine those poor fossil fuel companies

---

Fossil fuel companies will be fine. You will continue to support them for the rest of your life whether you realize it or not.

quote:

---

Anyway, my weekend is about to begin. Y'all keep it civil.

---

frick yourself doomsday alarmist. Go bow down to "science" lmao

He has been lazy this entire thread.