America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 7 months ago by Stinkdyr. 93 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Obama faked Global Warming...
DrafterX Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
A key Obama administration scientist brushed aside inconvenient data that showed a slowdown in global warming in compiling an alarming 2015 report that coincided with the White House participation in the Paris Climate Conference, a whistle blower is alleging.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a major 2013 report, concluded global temperatures had shown a smaller increase from 1998 to 2012 than any similar period over the past 30 to 60 years. But a blockbuster, June 2015 paper by a team of federal scientists led by Thomas Karl, published in the journal Science in June 2015 and later known as the “pausebuster" paper sought to discredit the notion of a slowdown in warming.

"Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century," Karl, who was at the time director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information, said at the time.


Smith, R-Texas, questioned the timing of the report.
The report argued that evidence shows there was no “hiatus” in rising global temperatures and that they had been increasing in the 21st century just as quickly as in the last half of the 20th century.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science Committee, questioned the timing, noting the paper was published just before the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan was submitted to the Paris Climate Conference of 2015.

"In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference," Smith said in a statement. "Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials."

Karl’s neglect of the IPCC data was purposeful, according to John Bates, a recently retired scientist from the National Climactic Data Center at the NOAA. Bates came forward just days ago to charge that the 2015 study selectively used misleading and unverified data – effectively putting NOAA’s thumb on the scale.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Bates said Karl was “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

For example, Karl allegedly adjusted temperature data collected by robot buoys upward to match earlier data from ocean-going ships. That was problematic, Bates said, because ships generate heat and could cause readings to vary.

“They had good data from buoys,” Bates told the Daily Mail. “And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”
Bates, who could not be reached for comment, but has published some of his allegations in a blog, claims to have documentation of his explosive charges and indicated more revelations are coming.




Film at 11.... Not talking Not talking



Thanks Obama..!! Mad
gummy jones Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 5,857
its worth a watch every year or two

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4
teedubbya Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 81,392
I heard the murder rates are at a 47 year high
DrafterX Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
Thanks Obama. !! Mad
teedubbya Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 81,392
DrafterX wrote:
Thanks Obama. !! Mad



He only did a few of them. That's why Trump is comparing him to Putin and stuff.
gummy jones Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 5,857
teedubbya wrote:
He only did a few of them. That's why Trump is comparing him to Putin and stuff.


that is the highest of compliments a trump could offer
DrafterX Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
Is that why Obama has been hiding out on a private island..?? Huh
elRopo Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 02-17-2014
Posts: 904
Statistics prove nothing.
teedubbya Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 81,392
elRopo wrote:
Statistics prove nothing.


98.7% of the time... or is is 97.8%?
DrafterX Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
just find the average and go with that... Mellow
elRopo Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 02-17-2014
Posts: 904
Statistics can prove anything, therefore they prove nothing 100% of the time.
teedubbya Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 81,392
DrafterX wrote:
just find the average and go with that... Mellow



what do you mean?
DrafterX Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
figure out how many times each of those percentages were used over the past year and then average that with how many times each was used in the past 5 years and 10 years... Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 81,392
that would be ghey
DrafterX Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
true.. true... but accurate... Mellow
Brewha Online
#16 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,037
More astroturfing Drafter?

I get it, you think global warming is a political ruse, wind power damages the environment, Hillary Clinton is a criminal and Donald Trump is .... our best hope.





Say - I have this real estate opertunity in New Jersey - You don't mind swamp do you?
frankj1 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 17,630
teedubbya wrote:
98.7% of the time... or is is 97.8%?

98.6 would be normal 98.2% of the time
DrafterX Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
Brewha was brainwashed. ... Sad
MACS Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 61,288
DrafterX wrote:
Brewha was brainwashed. ... Sad


With time, effort, and divine intervention... we might could fix him.
TMCTLT Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,309
[quote=MACS]With time, effort, and divine intervention... we might could fix him.[/quote



One has to WANT to get better....
DrMaddVibe Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 46,764
They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.

The response has been extraordinary, with The Mail on Sunday’s disclosures reverberating around the world. There have been nearly 150,000 Facebook ‘shares’ since last Sunday, an astonishing number for a technically detailed piece, and extensive coverage in media at home and abroad.

It has even triggered an inquiry by Congress. Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who chairs the House of Representatives’ science committee, is renewing demands for documents about the controversial paper, which was produced by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the world’s leading source of climate data.

In his view, the whistleblower had shown that ‘NOAA cheated and got caught’. No wonder Smith and many others are concerned: the revelations go to the very heart of the climate change industry and the scientific claims we are told we can trust.

Remember, the 2015 Paris Agreement imposes gigantic burdens and its effects are felt on every household in the country. Emissions pledges made by David Cameron will cost British consumers a staggering £319 billion by 2030 – almost three times the annual budget for the NHS in England.

That is not the end of it. Taxpayers also face an additional hefty contribution to an annual £80 billion in ‘climate aid’ from advanced countries to the developing world. That is on top of our already gargantuan aid budget. Green levies and taxes already cost the average household more than £150 a year.

The contentious paper at the heart of this furore – with the less than accessible title of Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus – was published just six months before the Paris conference by the influential journal Science.

It made a sensational claim: that contrary to what scientists have been saying for years, there was no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the early 21st Century.

Indeed, this ‘Pausebuster’ paper as it has become known, claimed the rate of warming was even higher than before, making ‘urgent action’ imperative.

There can be no doubting the impact of this document. It sat prominently in the scientific briefings handed out to international negotiators, including EU and UK diplomats.

An official report from the European Science Advisory Council stated that the paper had ‘refined the corrections in temperature records’ and shown the warming rate after 2000 was higher than for 1950-99.

So, flawed as it was, the Pausebuster paper unquestionably helped persuade world leaders to sign an agreement that imposes massive emissions cuts on developed countries.

No wonder, then, that our revelations were met with fury by green propagandists. Some claimed the MoS had published ‘fake news’. One scientist accused me of becoming the ‘David Irving of climate change denial’ – a reference to the infamous Holocaust denier.

Yet perhaps more damaging is the claim from some in the green lobby that our disclosures are small beer. In fact, their importance cannot be overstated. They strike at the heart of climate science because they question the integrity of the global climate datasets on which pretty much everything else depends.

The whistleblower is a man called Dr John Bates, who until last year was one of two NOAA ‘principal scientists’ working on climate issues. And as he explained to the MoS, one key concern is the reliability of new data on sea temperatures issued in 2015 at the same time as the Pausebuster paper.

It turns out that when NOAA compiled what is known as the ‘version 4’ dataset, it took reliable readings from buoys but then ‘adjusted’ them upwards – using readings from seawater intakes on ships that act as weather stations.
They did this even though readings from the ships have long been known to be too hot.

No one, to be clear, has ‘tampered’ with the figures. But according to Bates, the way those figures were chosen exaggerated global warming.

And without this new dataset there would have been no Pausebuster paper. If, as previous sea water evidence has shown, there really has been a pause in global warming, then it calls into question the received wisdom about its true scale.
Then there is the matter of timing. Documents obtained by this newspaper show that NOAA, ignoring protests by Dr Bates, held back publication of the version 4 sea dataset several months after it was ready – to intensify the impact of the Pausebuster paper. It also meant more sceptical voices had no chance to examine the figures.

Our revelations showed there was another problem with the Pausebuster paper – it used an untested experimental version of the dataset recording temperatures on land, which had not been properly archived and made accessible to other scientists.

We cannot allow such a vital issue for our future to be mired in half truths and deceptions.

This was a fundamental breach of mandatory rules under NOAA’s Climate Data Records programme, which Bates had devised. Is it sharp practice? Certainly it carries the stench of ‘Climategate’ in 2009, when leaked emails showed scientists colluding to hide data and weaknesses in their arguments.

It is important to acknowledge the MoS did make one error: the caption on a graph, showing the difference between NOAA’s sea data records and the UK Met Office’s, did not make clear that they used different baselines. We corrected this immediately on our website.

The only ‘fake news’ in our revelations is the claim that they don’t matter.

In truth, they are hugely damaging, for they suggest an agreement made by figures such as Barack Obama and David Cameron rested in part on research that had not been published with integrity.

This is an age where many have come to question the role of experts. Restoring trust demands transparency.
In climate science, this means being open about the fact there are still critical uncertainties: not about the basic proposition that the world is warming, thanks in part to humans, but about the speed at which this is happening; and when it is likely, left unchecked, to become truly dangerous.

Al Gore famously said: ‘The science is settled.’ It is not.
We cannot allow such a vital issue for our future to be mired in half truths and deceptions.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html





Think
DrafterX Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
Those Bassards..!! Mad
tonygraz Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 8,634
Boy, you righties really fall for Fake News. They say 51% of you are outraged because of the unreported Bowling Green Massacre.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 46,764
tonygraz wrote:
Boy, you righties really fall for Fake News. They say 51% of you are outraged because of the unreported Bowling Green Massacre.



What are you even talking about?

I'm willing to bet it was just a work related accident and not a massacre. Maybe you meant mascara...all those talking heads wear it.
Brewha Online
#25 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,037
DrafterX wrote:
Brewha was brainwashed. ... Sad

Of cource.....

Or perhaps it is simple hericy on my part.
- same thing I suppose.




Tell me again why Trump still has not put Hillary in jail.
elRopo Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 02-17-2014
Posts: 904
Brewha wrote:
Of cource.....

Or perhaps it is simple hericy on my part.
- same thing I suppose.




Tell me again why Trump still has not put Hillary in jail.

Careful, Siberia is cold this time of year.fog
Abrignac Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 13,353
It seems instead of using bouy temp readings that are accepted as more accurate they opted to use ship measured water temp readings which are accepted as being higher than actual. From that data they extrapolated that seawater temps where increasing.

I thought accurate science used data to create studies based on what the data revealed, not devising a hypothesis and manipulating the results until the researchers can prove their agenda.
jjanecka Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 3,073
Proof that even science cannot be trusted.
tailgater Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
jjanecka wrote:
Proof that even science cannot be trusted.


Science can.
Scientists can't.

gummy jones Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 5,857
tailgater wrote:
Science can.
Scientists can't.



especially not when there is only so much funding to go around and a scientist has to regularly state their case for a piece of the pie
DrafterX Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
True... true... Mellow


Tell them what they want to hear and they'll keep funding you.... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
Brewha wrote:
Of cource.....

Or perhaps it is simple hericy on my part.
- same thing I suppose.




Tell me again why Trump still has not put Hillary in jail.



He's waiting for his new Attorney General to get the evidence in order and stuff... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,181
Except snopes says this is bunk.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/
DrafterX Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
Screw the Snopes... Not talking
teedubbya Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 81,392
DrafterX wrote:
Screw the Snopes... Not talking



Agreed. Breitbart and info wars says its true and stuff
tailgater Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
DrafterX wrote:
True... true... Mellow


Tell them what they want to hear and they'll keep funding you.... Mellow


And you won't get fired.

Mish Michaels was a meteorologist in Boston for many years.
Recently hired by WGBH Boston as a science reporter, she was let go when the station learned of her personal opinions on Climate Change and Vaccines.
Neither opinion, by the way, is too extreme.
She isn't an anti-vax nazi. She is pro-parental choice.
And she isn't a climate denier. She believes there is a warming trend, but doesn't put the same weight to human activity that the so-called 97% does.

Turns out, there is a large faction of meteorologists who feel the same way. (on the latter, not the vaccine thingy).
They better keep opinions to themselves, especially if involved in public broadcast stations where government funding is critical.
Or is that just a coincidence????


victor809 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,181
Not to point out the obvious tail... but the person you refer to isn't a scientist. She's a reporter...

Your example would have nothing to do with science or the pursuit of it...
tailgater Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
victor809 wrote:
Not to point out the obvious tail... but the person you refer to isn't a scientist. She's a reporter...

Your example would have nothing to do with science or the pursuit of it...


Meteorologist.
Didn't mean to confuse you. You know. By using the word "meteorologist" in my post.




victor809 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,181
Look up her bio. Yes she's a "meteorologist". But she isn't a scientist. There are no studies she has been part of. No data analysis. She's a "science reporter" according to the Boston Globe.

If a bunch of meteorologists don't believe something that people actually generating and analyzing the data for their entire career believe... you're going to believe the meteorologist?

And how does firing a reporter who doesn't believe in vaccines change the science behind climate change or in any way support your claim that scientists are being pressured to come up with data supporting climate change? Again... she's not generating any data.
elRopo Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 02-17-2014
Posts: 904
I'm not worried about global warming cause I live close to the water. If the water starts to boil evaporative cooling will kick in and cool things down just like air conditioning right? And I'm 30ft elevation so no worries there either.
teedubbya Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 81,392
^ not high enough elevation to keep the darkies out

Major Flaw
tailgater Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
victor809 wrote:
Look up her bio. Yes she's a "meteorologist". But she isn't a scientist. There are no studies she has been part of. No data analysis. She's a "science reporter" according to the Boston Globe.

If a bunch of meteorologists don't believe something that people actually generating and analyzing the data for their entire career believe... you're going to believe the meteorologist?

And how does firing a reporter who doesn't believe in vaccines change the science behind climate change or in any way support your claim that scientists are being pressured to come up with data supporting climate change? Again... she's not generating any data.


I didn't say she was a scientist. You're arguing with yourself.
I said she was a meteorologist.
Her new position at WGBH was as the stations Science Reporter. The station knew her background and education level and body of work. Not sure why you're so riled up on this?

As for the vaccine thingy? Seems there was more to it than just that. In almost every report it was mentioned how her climate opinions also were a likely influence.

But you're right. She's not a scientist. So I'm sorry I called her one. Feel better?

tailgater Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
teedubbya wrote:
^ not high enough elevation to keep the darkies out

Major Flaw


How high up do you need to go?
I'll be skiing next week and would like to know.

Wait.
Never mind.
We'll be in Vermont.**











**97% white.
No wonder there is so much liberal guilt up there.




victor809 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,181
Tail... if she isn't a scientist, and her firing has zero impact on the ability of climate science to determine if there is an issue with man made climate change... then why bother bringing up her firing? It's a complete red herring. It proves nothing and impacts nothing.
elRopo Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 02-17-2014
Posts: 904
teedubbya wrote:
^ not high enough elevation to keep the darkies out

Major Flaw

Well Chit! Didn't think of that. Can they swim? I also have a boat. d'oh!
Covfireman Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 806
Abrignac wrote:
It seems instead of using bouy temp readings that are accepted as more accurate they opted to use ship measured water temp readings which are accepted as being higher than actual. From that data they extrapolated that seawater temps where increasing.

I thought accurate science used data to create studies based on what the data revealed, not devising a hypothesis and manipulating the results until the researchers can prove their agenda.



I'm stoned but I thought Victor wrote that . Herfing
Covfireman Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 806
elRopo wrote:
I'm not worried about global warming cause I live close to the water. If the water starts to boil evaporative cooling will kick in and cool things down just like air conditioning right? And I'm 30ft elevation so no worries there either.



I wonder about that . Why not pump seawater to the desert let it evaporate come back in rain collect salt from evaporation pans sell repeat run it o a salt bath nuclear reactor we solve global warming California's drought problem , and get rid of some spent nuclear fuel . He'll you could even pump it somewhere and use it as pumped storage for storing excess electricity on the grid .
Covfireman Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 806
tailgater wrote:
I didn't say she was a scientist. You're arguing with yourself.
I said she was a meteorologist.
Her new position at WGBH was as the stations Science Reporter. The station knew her background and education level and body of work. Not sure why you're so riled up on this?

As for the vaccine thingy? Seems there was more to it than just that. In almost every report it was mentioned how her climate opinions also were a likely influence.

But you're right. She's not a scientist. So I'm sorry I called her one. Feel better?




Her anti-vax stance was " more parental,choice " so what it's close to what my position would be and hadn't worked with Rotary on polio and realized that to end a disease everyone in the community has to vacated to protect the rest .

I'm not sure if we should be curing some of these overpopulation and all Sarcasm
tailgater Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
victor809 wrote:
Tail... if she isn't a scientist, and her firing has zero impact on the ability of climate science to determine if there is an issue with man made climate change... then why bother bringing up her firing? It's a complete red herring. It proves nothing and impacts nothing.


What?
This Meteorologist (you might want to look up this word) was fired from her job because of opinions she expressed while outside her job.
One of those opinions was in regards to climate change. Which is related to the climate of the earth. Which is related to weather.

As for the person? From Wikipedia:
Mish Michaels is a broadcast meteorologist and environmental reporter.[1] She joined the WBZ-TV Weather Team in September 2001, and left in July 2009. She was born in Kolkata, India. She received a Bachelor of Science degree in Meteorology from Cornell University in New York and Master's degree in Technology from Harvard University.[2]

What??
Cornell? Harvard??
But she isn't a scientist so she shouldn't have an opinion!

Get a grip, Victor. The firing is based on politics. Sorry I had to spell it out for you.

victor809 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,181
The firing is based on politics. So?

I'm apparently going to have to spell it out for you... firing a broadcast meteorologist for her political views has as much impact on climate science as firing a cnn reporter has on how Congress will vote.

Your constant claim is that political pressure is impacting the science. This is a journalist. Look at her references. She may come from good schools but she didn't do any research there. I have my name in more science publications than her and i havent done anything of value since undergrad. She didn't generate data, just reports on it.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>