Snow on the ground in all 50 states, climate change is being downgraded

Need to dig up that article about the scientists (maybe from UN or whatever) who were fabricating findings to fit the climate change movement. They actually found the trend to be opposite of what was being reported.

quote:

---

In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.” The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed. This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming.

The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring.

---

quote:

---

“Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn. Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study

---

How are we supposed to plan for 2100 if they can't make their minds up?

quote:

---

Funny how everyone is going ignore the fact that they also raised the lower range as well as lowering the higher range. 

---

'Our first range was accurate within the updated range'

quote:

---

This is how science generally works. You improve your findings with better data and improved methods.

---

Interesting choice of words there. One does not improve one's findings, one just changes their findings. One may improve the accuracy of their findings. That way you can claim to be smarter than non- scientists.

quote:

---

Need to dig up that article about the scientists (maybe from UN or whatever) who were fabricating findings to fit the climate change movement. They actually found the trend to be opposite of what was being reported.

---

None of this is accurate.

quote:

---

Cox and colleagues, using a new methodology, have come up with a far narrower range: 2.2 C to 3.4 C, with a best estimate of 2.8 C (5 F).

---

quote:

---

Even a 1.5 C increase will have consequences. A 3.5 (rise), could pull at the fabric of civilisation.

---

quote:

---

The findings should not been seen as taking pressure off the need to tackle climate change, the authors and other experts warned.

---

So they have a more precise estimate of the effects of global warming influenced by humans?
What article did you read?
(good troll)

quote:

---

Come on Salmon, you cannot be part of the climate change religion

---

I'm not part of any religion.

quote:

---

So they have a more precise estimate of the effects of global warming influenced by humans?
What article did you read?
(good troll)

---

They started off with, we were wrong. OK, but now we are right and it can still be bad. Just not as bad as we tried to scare you with before.

I wish people of the climate change religion could learn about history. What actually has happened is so much more important than what might happen.

quote:

---

I wish people of the climate change religion could learn about history. What actually has happened is so much more important than what might happen

---

What do you think the trend is?

quote:

---

I always find it funny how people look at the last 100 years to predict the climate was for the last 2 billion years.

---

Nobody does this