global warming | Page 14 | INFJ Forum

global warming

global warming?

  • Is happening and man made

  • Is happening and natural

  • Is not happening, greens are hysterical

  • Is just a distracting ploy

  • Is an attempt to establish a world government.


Results are only viewable after voting.
TheBlaze


Former NOAA scientist: Colleagues manipulated climate change data for political reasons
GettyImages-626559922-768x396.jpg


More than 1,000 demonstrators protesting a variety of causes — police shootings, global warming, low wages, opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline — march through the streets of San Diego on Nov. 29, 2016. (BILL WECHTER/AFP/Getty Images)


Tré Goins-Phillips
Feb 7, 2017 12:21 pm
One former scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is stepping forward to blow the whistle on his former colleagues’ alleged political effort to manipulate scientific data published just ahead of the United Nations’ 2015 Climate Change Conference.

Dr. John Bates, who led NOAA’s climate-data records program before retiring last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science, shared his stunning insights in a Daily Mail story published Saturday.


The crux of Bates’ claim is that NOAA, the federal government’s top agency in charge of climate science, published a poorly-researched but widely praised study with the political goal of disproving the controversial global warming hiatus theory, which suggests that global warming slowed down from 1998 until 2012 with little change in globally-averaged surface temperatures — a direct contrast to global warming advocates’ claim that the earth’s temperature has been constantly increasing.

Bates accused the NOAA study’s lead author, Thomas Karl, of using unverified data sets, ignoring necessary agency procedures and failing to archive his research in a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of the study ahead of the climate conference. According to Bates, there is no way to replicate Karl’s data because the computer used to store the research “suffered a complete failure.”

The study — “Possible Artifacts of Data Biases in the Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus” — was published by Science magazine in June 2015 and pushed back against assertions from other research groups that found a pause in rising global temperatures from 1998 to 2012, which goes against climate change advocates’ insistence that the earth’s temperature has been on a steady incline for decades. A pause would, at least in part, discredit arguments for global warming and lend credence to skeptics who argue the climate goes through a natural cycle of changes.

At the time, some climate change advocates were concerned by a 2013 determination by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951.” Ultimately, the IPCC “concluded that the global surface temperature ‘has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years [1998-2012] than over the past 30 to 60 years.'”

In his effort to disapprove this so-called “hiatus,” Karl claimed he had developed a way to increase the temperature readings that had, over the years, been collected by buoys. Scientists had been testing water temperatures to make the case for global warming and Karl decided to adjust the readings from the buoys by using higher temperature readouts of sea water collected by ships.

“In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data,” one of the study’s co-authors wrote, adding, “Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis.”

With raised temperatures, the National Review pointed out, there was no longer a discernible difference between data collected from the 1950s to 2014, seemingly disproving the “hiatus” theory:

This dubious methodology concluded that the warming trend for 2000 to 2014 was exactly the same as it was for 1950 to 1999: “There is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century.” The study then concluded that the IPCC’s statement about a slower rise in global temperature “is no longer valid.” (It takes a lot of chutzpah to out-climate the international climateers.)

But, according to Bates, the study has a lot of cracks.

“They had good data from buoys,” he told the Daily Mail. “And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships [a natural warming source]. You never change good data to agree with the bad, but that’s what they did so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”

And the problems don’t stop with just this report. Bates wrote in a post at the blog Climate Etc. that government scientists often fail to preserve any of their work. “The most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data,” he wrote.

Bates wrote that he finds “great irony” in the fact that climate change advocates are now up in arms about President Donald Trump’s retooling of the Environmental Protection Agency, expressing fears that data might be lost in the new administration’s scrubbing of climate change research.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, has been asking for all the data from Karl’s 2015 report, but NOAA has refused to cooperate. Smith is now praising Bates for “courageously stepping forward.”

“The committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity,” Smith said in a statement on the matter.


© 2017 TheBlaze, Inc.
 
Hardly compelling evidence when the U.N. report is known to have used manipulated data as well as deleting the key last few sentence saying there's no proof of man made global warming.

Eh? Global warming was predicted in Revelations. I hope you're not calling The Bible into question ???

Next you'll say there's no Santa Claus. If you don't get no presents, that's on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eventhorizon
Eh? Global warming was predicted in Revelations. I hope you're not calling The Bible into question ???

Next you'll say there's no Santa Claus. If you don't get no presents, that's on you.
Funny.
I've posted more than enough to show that while man made global warming is likely real, no data that shows to what extent that is true exists. In fact predictions given for the present time we live in have clearly been proven to be wrong. If man made global warming had been proven there should be an easy way to predict accurately tempature fluctuations and their direct effect. Yet, while people can clearly predict and do, no one has ever been right. You can't say it's been proven when you can't get your predictions even close to what actually happens.
 
But look what's the big deal. If people want to spend their time and effort fighting a perceived threat who really cares? I don't. Its when people use fear mongering, violence, intimidation and destroy people's lives over the b.s. that it irritates me.
 
8 Highly Inconvenient Facts for Al Gore 10 Years After His Infamous Movie
PierreGuy Veer Jan 27, 2016 12:00 pm
Nearly 10 years ago to the day, former Vice President Al Gore premiered his famous movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” When he first aired it he warned us that within a decade, everything would turn sour if we didn’t act decisively on climate. So how are we faring? Here are Gore’s top eight statements and their verification in the real world.


Former US vice president Al Gore delivers a speech before a screening of the film he helped make of his best-selling global warming book ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, 22 June 2007 in Cannes, southern France. Gore was recently nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in drawing attention to climate change, while the film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ earlier this year won an Oscar.


Credit: AFP/Getty Images



1. Sea Levels Are Rising At An Alarming Rate
In his movie Gore predicted that sea levels could rise six meters (20 feet) with the melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

Now, we know that the South Pole is gaining more ice than it’s losing. Also a great amount of the losing is due to underground heat. As for Greenland, its melting cycle doesn’t seem to have changed much. In fact, it seems to be quite regular. And sea level has been increasing… at a steady level since we started recording them.

But if the rising sea level is so catastrophic, why has Gore bought a beachfront mansion?


" data-dfp-script-exe="div-gpt-ad-In-Content_300x250_102" style="box-sizing: border-box;">


2. CO2 Is The Control Knob For Temperature
Like most climate cultists, Al Gore firmly believes that carbon dioxide – what you are exhaling – is what controls temperature. And climate models have constantly reflected that reality.

Unfortunately, “it’s the sun, stupid” to paraphrase Bill Clinton. Indeed satellite data show no increase in temperature for nearly 19 years despite a constant increase in CO2. The Sun, on the other hand, might have a much larger role in the Earth’s climate. So much that some scientists are talking about a significant cooling because the Sun is “quieter.”

And of course, climate models have miserably failed even compared to the (very probably) tampered NASA data.

3. Hurricane Katrina Was Man Made
Two years before Gore released his movie, New Orleans had been devastated by Hurricane Katrina. At the time many people believed that this would be the new norm because of global warming.

Now, Gore was partly right: damage to New Orleans was man-made. It was caused by a dire neglect of the levees protecting the city. And their improvement might not be enough to withstand another Katrina.

As for Katrina being the new norm, Gore is wrong once more. No F3+ hurricane has landed on U.S. soil since Wilma in October 2005, the longest such “drought” ever recorded.

Have Obama’s actions on climate helped? Or was there no problem in the first place?

4. Severe Tornadoes Are Increasing
Along with hurricanes, climate cultist logic teaches us that other extreme wind events like tornadoes will be on the rise.

However it’s not blowing very strong. F3+ tornadoes have been declining for over 60 years. Also, the overall number of tornadoes has been unusually low in the past three years. It does have an upwards trend, but that’s because we have better tools to detect them.

5. Polar Bears Are Dying
The North’s favorite mascot in going extinct according to America’s green pope. Because the ice is getting thinner because of global warming, they can’t reproduce. A recent picture of a sick polar bear also “proved” that point.

Of course, this is hot air too. There are more polar bears now than when Al Gore was born. The government of Nunavut, along with Inuit hunters, have also noticed that the polar bear is doing quite well.

6. The Arctic Is Melting
The polar bears are (supposedly) disappearing because their playground, the Arctic, is melting fast. Gore even predicted its complete melting for 2014.

Now that we know it’s not true, here is one more inconvenient truth about the North Pole. It’s gaining ice, and 2015 saw the largest refreezing in over a decade.

7. The Sahel Is Drying Up
The region south of the Sahara desert is one of the poorest places on the planet. And because of global warming, it’s getting drier and drier according to the Goreacle.

This is not true. As shown by satellite images, the Sahel is in fact one of the regions that gained the most flora density since satellites exist. All of that is due to the reviled CO2, which acts as a fertilizer.

8. CO2 Is Pollution
Finally, no climate cultist nonsense would be complete without uttering their favorite lie: CO2 is carbon “pollution.” Therefore we must fight to control it to protect our children, save the planet, stop kitten massacres, etc.

But as shown above, more CO2 is desirable. In fact, agriculture seems to profit greatly from increased carbon “pollution” as shown by yields. But if CO2 does need to be controlled, then liberals might think twice about organic farming.

In short, Al Gore remains as irrelevant as he was 10 years ago. Like the climate models, nearly all his predictions fell flat. And with elections lurking around the corner, make sure you don’t elect one of his followers. Unless, of course, you want to destroy America’s economy once and for all.



TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.

beacon.gif

http://scribol.com/a/lifestyle/mom-...ter_Tore_Check_US_Mobile&utm_content=theblaze






recommendtrack
 
Funny.
I've posted more than enough to show that while man made global warming is likely real, no data that shows to what extent that is true exists. In fact predictions given for the present time we live in have clearly been proven to be wrong. If man made global warming had been proven there should be an easy way to predict accurately tempature fluctuations and their direct effect. Yet, while people can clearly predict and do, no one has ever been right. You can't say it's been proven when you can't get your predictions even close to what actually happens.

Making highly accurate predictions, with this amount of data is probably, currently impossible. I joke because I think everyone should hope it's wrong. If it isn't we're going to have major problems.

I think some consideration of that is prudent. I think reducing co2 emissions would be wise. But I don't think it will happen. So I can only hope it's wrong and plan my own life.

Which is currently going ok without the ear bleeding noise of my ex lol. I hope you're well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: James
Making highly accurate predictions, with this amount of data is probably, currently impossible. I joke because I think everyone should hope it's wrong. If it isn't we're going to have major problems.

I think some consideration of that is prudent. I think reducing co2 emissions would be wise. But I don't think it will happen. So I can only hope it's wrong and plan my own life.

Which is currently going ok without the ear bleeding noise of my ex lol. I hope you're well.
Are we finally agreeing on something?! Oh I bet we are, you just don't know it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: James

Just more proof people who say man made global warming is irrefutable are either lying, ignorant or have an agenda outside of what the data shows.
 
Last edited:
Global warming is a misleading title, it should really just be called 'Climate Change' - something empirically real and a way in which we are doing irreparable damage.

An introductory understanding of basic physics, chemistry, ecology and weather systems would make it patently obvious how logging hundreds of thousands of hectares of rain-forests will irreversibly change the climate in an area, and have a follow-on effect to all areas around it. Namely a decrease in rainfall and an increase in temperature.

The CO2 angle is an unfortunately erratic and not as relevant factor of climate change, that political organisations like Greenpeace wielded like a blunt instrument in their fervour to try and have the general public become more aware of climate change. While it's true there are more holes in the way these politically motivated 'pro climate' organisations argue their points than there is in a giant block of Swiss cheese, the science supporting the fact that humans are accelerating global warming in a number of ways is incredibly robust.

If anyone would like to debate on topics such as forest ecology, crop rotation or certain acts of "re-configuring" nature (such as damming up thousands of acres of natural floodplains and the effects these actions eventually have, feel free to engage me on any of these topics and I will make it abundantly obvious that man is indeed accelerating climate change, and that these changes do lead to accelerating an increase in average global temperature, beyond what would be natural without human input on such a massive scale. I'm quite happy to do so as I think it's always good to take politically charged topics into a more empirical and scientific territory :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skarekrow
earth_temperature_timeline.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skarekrow
So the information in the graph which is corroborated by four separate organisations that record and interpret meteorological data is a 'bunch of BS" is it?

NCDC
NASA
BOM
MetOffice

All of them are wrong?

Should I start gathering information from meteorology institutions elsewhere as well? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skarekrow
Watch the video I posted or dont.
 
Watch the video I posted or dont.

I watched it. It stars two very obvious hacks, neither of which are actual meteorologists.

Graham Hancock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock

Randall Carlson: http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/randall-carlson

When your source of argument is an 8 minute video starring two pseudoscientists, and that's what you're using to 'debunk' hundreds of years of meteorological data corroborated in over 100 countries...it might be time to rethink which side of the argument you're on ;)
 
It
I watched it. It stars two very obvious hacks, neither of which are actual meteorologists.

Graham Hancock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock

Randall Carlson: http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/randall-carlson

When your source of argument is an 8 minute video starring two pseudoscientists, and that's what you're using to 'debunk' hundreds of years of meteorological data corroborated in over 100 countries...it might be time to rethink which side of the argument you're on ;)
The ice core data is coborated by other ice core data from around the world. It's irrefutable.
It's added data that's provocative.
 
Yes they are, but their implications are not that climate change is false, nor does it refute the data showing temperature changes from the 1850s to present day.

For an actual scientific source:

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-canadian-ice-core-samples-holocene.html

It's referring to temperature changes in The Holocene period and absolutely does not refute the meteorological data of the last 150 years showing warming. Which is why these two are obvious hacks. They take what is at the surface a scientific concept, that has nothing to do with recent meteorological data and construct a dishonest and misleading argument. It's what they do for their money ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skarekrow