Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They ARE actual scientists-- they know infinitely more about the topic than you do. You do not work for NASA, do not have the background to work for NASA, do not know what people at NASA do on a daily basis, and if you wanted to work there the best you could do is administration or maybe a janitor.
You mean the same NASA that continues to this moment to publish on its website the blatant flat out lie "that 97% of climate scientists agree" with the blatantly flawed AGW alarmism hypothesis, when in fact there has been no scientific, statistically sound poll that has been conducted supports this.
That NASA? LOL. These people have outed themselves as propagandists and are perpetrating falsehoods and lies on this topic at this very moment and as a result cannot be trusted on this. Here is the link
The study that sampled articles on climate change as a proxy for what either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" believe does not even purport to support the conclusion that you and the other environmental extremists claim that it does.
But of course if you can produce a scientific, statistically sound poll that has been conducted showing that 97% of either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" support the AGW alarmism hypothesis, we would all like to see it. But you cannot do it because it does not exist.
NASA either knows this and is knowingly lying or is ignorant of it and is demonstrating their lack of reliability by their negligent promotion of lies on this topic. In either case, they are not a reliable or trustworthy source on this subject.
Your regard for NASA as some sort of infallible source of information is clearly misplaced.
As far as statistical analysis goes I don't have enough information to form an opinion on their practices.
This isn't accounting!
You're not going to read this, but processing data is an important part of identifying climate trends. Without adjusting for the changes in location, technology, etc... the data wouldn't be correct.
It happens all the time and it has nothing to do with deceiving anyone:
The accountant cherry picked whichever stations would cause the most controversy, ignored the rest, and counted on the ignorance of ordinary people to cause a 'controversy'. For example:
NOAA: Largest Adjustment "Actually Lowers Global Temperature Trends." Contrary to Booker's claim that NOAA and NASA make temperature adjustments to exaggerate the amount of warming, in their statement to Media Matters, NOAA noted that the largest temperature adjustment is made "over the oceans," which "actually lowers global temperature trends":
Why didn't he make any mention of the fact that the ocean temperature adjustments lowered global temperatures?
Why didn't he note that this was the BIGGEST adjustment they made?
Because it didn't fit his stupid narrative.
Quote:
NOAA Adjusts Temperature Data For Variety Of Important Reasons. NOAA's website details all of the "quality control and homogeneity testing and adjustment procedures" for the data at each station in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. This data is part of the Global Historical Climatology Network, which is "an integrated database of climate summaries from land surface stations across the globe that have been subjected to a common suite of quality assurance reviews." The reasons for adjusting the data listed on the NOAA website include (paraphrased):
Quality control "to identify suspects... and outliers."
Time-of-observation changes.
Adjustments "for the bias introduced when the liquid-in-glass thermometers were replaced with the [Maximum/Minimum Temperature System]."
Homogeneity adjustment "to account for time series discontinuities due to random station moves and other station changes."
Estimates for missing data when needed "based on a 'network' of the best correlated nearby stations."
Urban warming bias. [NOAA.gov, accessed 2/9/15; accessed 2/10/15]
All of these scandals and conspiracies and backwards statements need to stop if you're ever going to approach even a basic understanding of the issue.
Last edited by Spatula City; 02-11-2015 at 04:29 PM..
Your regard for NASA as some sort of infallible source of information is clearly misplaced.
Your made-up BS about people being caught in lies comes directly from Heartland and the various blogs and right-wing news outlets that form its PR machine.
It's unbelievable that you have the gall to attack NASA and science in general while countering with nothing but baseless attacks from loudmouths who will defend anyone or anything that pays them, no matter how vile.
Your made-up BS about people being caught in lies comes directly from Heartland and the various blogs and right-wing news outlets that form its PR machine.
It's unbelievable that you have the gall to attack NASA and science in general while countering with nothing but baseless attacks from loudmouths who will defend anyone or anything that pays them, no matter how vile.
Obviously they're not infallible... but there's a HUGE difference between making a few honest mistakes and participating in a massive global conspiracy to convince everyone of something that isn't real.
But at least the conspiracy theories assume that thousands of climatologists around the world are intelligent enough to be somewhat manipulative (though of course the only people they're capable of manipulating is liberals, who are so stupid they are basically animals). What's worse is when you and the rest of the deniers paint NASA as so incompetent that even people with no science background whatsoever can see right through them.
I'm thoroughly convinced you would call Einstein an idiot if some random right wing blogger told you that mass–energy equivalence was going to result in taxation.
Obviously they're not infallible... but there's a HUGE difference between making a few honest mistakes and participating in a massive global conspiracy to convince everyone of something that isn't real.
But I think what's even worse than the conspiracy ideation is when you and the rest of the deniers paint them as so incompetent that even people with no science background whatsoever can see right through them.
I'm thoroughly convinced you would call Einstein an idiot if some random right wing blogger told you that mass–energy equivalence was going to result in taxation.
Well, they still have the blatantly untrue and inaccurate article about the 97% of climate scientists agreeing with the AGW alarmism hypothesis posted on their website, even as we speak.
But of course if you can produce a scientific, statistically sound poll that has been conducted showing that 97% of either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" support the AGW alarmism hypothesis, we would all like to see it.
But as you know very well, you cannot do it because it does not exist. You know this and you continue to blindly defend them anyway, even when you know this claim is baseless.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...south-america/
Have you gone there and looked? Three reporting stations out of how many? But where they were had a lot of weight. So virtually identical and identical. In % of data I'd bet it was small. In conclusion to the outcome? big difference.
Looking at the graph on the blog I can see a difference. But then again I can't tell what you can see or not see.
What blog? Berkeley Earth's web site is not a blog, and if you can see a difference between the temperature measurements and the adjustments, then it is your imagination....There is no difference, and by saying there is you are no more honest than Booker.
Let us see 15,000 years ago or something like that. A large part of the northern hemisphere was covered by ice.
Now it isn't.
It got warmer.
Did we do that?
1315 it got colder.
1730 -ish it started warming up again.
Is it still warming up?
Is it cooling off?
Why?
and there in lies the rub against AGW climate change. i am watching the history channels show "little ice age:big chill". one of the things the scientists, all climate or earth scientists by the way, say is that MAN CANNOT CONTROL THE CLIMATE. it is going to be what it is going to be, regardless of what we do. now can we have an effect on the climate? sure. but it wont be a large effect. we can have a small effect at best.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
