« prev   random   next »


Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For Nearly All Of The Warming In Climate Data

By NuttBoxer following x   2017 Jul 6, 11:18am 1,709 views   17 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    

"Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend."


1   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2017 Jul 6, 11:41am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

A little fudging never hurt THE TRUTH!

2   jazz_music   ignore (6)   2017 Jul 6, 1:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Incredible click bait

3   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2017 Jul 6, 2:07pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

From youtube description:
"They say up to 90% of an iceberg is hidden underwater"

4   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2017 Jul 6, 2:15pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Articles like this, and responses like yours are why I GW is BS. If you're telling the truth, you don't need to fudge numbers. And if your belief is in something real, not something fake, you don't need to squawk like some freaked out alarmist. Your religion is so brittle even the smallest chink is liable to make it collapse, so you and your zealots have to screech like banshees at anyone who questions it, less your huge logic gaps are exposed, and you're proven not be be world saviors, but neanderthals who still believe the sun revolves around the earth.

The day you pick up trash from your yard, compost your food waste, and stop buying "food" from industrialized processing plants, you'll be listened to, because you'll have credibility. Something for you to strive for...

5   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Jul 6, 2:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

NuttBoxer says

Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For Nearly All Of The Warming In Climate Data

More fake news repeated by people who don't care that it's fake news.

The Daily Caller is an obvious right-wing propaganda mill. Look at the title of the articles on its homepage.
House Dem IT Suspects Wanted Untraceable Payments. Sure Enough, Millions Disappeared
Linda Sarsour Says Muslims Should Wage A Form Of 'Jihad' Against Trump
CNN Analyst: You Don't Have The 'Right' To Be Anonymous
CNN's Michael Smerconish: Media Should Out Anonymous People If They Say 'Bigoted' Things
CNN Slides To #13 In Cable Rankings
Sad DSCC Fundraising Email Admits 'We've Not Won A Thing'
CNN FLOODED With Negative Reviews

No one is that obsessed over CNN unless they are a right-wing nutjob or propaganda mill.

I'm sure the study can be easily debunked if it hasn't already. But the fact that this study appears only on right-wing propaganda mills is a huge red flag.

6   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Jul 6, 2:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Well, a minute into researching the first guy on the paper, Dr. James P. Wallace III, shows another red flag.

Dr. James P. Wallace III is a doctor of economics, not climate or any other science. The very first person listed in this study isn't even a scientist, nonetheless climatologist. But hey, why listen to all the climatologists when you have a lay man with a paper that's not even peer reviewed or published in any scientific journal.

Do you fools not know that for $50 you can have anything published by a variety of publication mills? Come one, don't be so naive.

7   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Jul 6, 2:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo, the second guy listed, also not a climatologist. Anyone want to take a bet on the third and final guy?

8   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Jul 6, 3:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Well, author three, Dr. Craig D. Idso, turns out to be former president and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a well-known fake science organization and propaganda mill.


Heartland Institute … in its NIPCC “Climate Change Reconsidered II: the Biological Impacts” document, will say that climate change is good for the world, will have a net benefit for both plants and human health. This is the latest line run by right wing think tanks like Heartland, the coal industry’s ACCCE coalition, Peabody Coal, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and echoed across the blogosphere by climate deniers.

This set of messaging and all ‘reports’ to back this line, all appear to be coming from one organization, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and specifically from its chairman and former president, Craig Idso, one of the NIPCC’s lead authors, who has been arguing the same “C02 is beneficial” line for nearly 20 years, along with his father, Sherwood Idso.

In 2012, leaked documents from the Heartland Institute revealed that they were paying Craig Idso $11,600 a month for his NIPCC work.

That's right, the third author is known to been paid $139,200/yr by big coal to lie about climate change. Follow the money.

All these fake studies paid for by big oil and big coal to fool the simplest of idiots actually proves how certain we are about man-made climate change and its disastrous consequences. You would not have to stoop to such despicable lies if the other side had any case whatsoever.

Hypocritically, NuttBoxer accuses real scientists of being bribed to say false things and then posts fake scientists making false claims who were paid handsomely for their lies.

NuttBoxer says

Be an "environmentalist" is just common sense as a better world makes for a better life. But that word is dirty, and used mostly by people who want to make money off it.

NuttBoxer says

JJJ the EPA exists to regulate the competition out of business and limit our land rights, they don't do shit else. Follow the money, or just look at the Colorado river again.

NuttBoxer says

Who funds the three letter agencies Dan? And who controls the money supply that funds them? I've said it before, and I'll say it a zillion times more. Follow the money to it's source, that will always prove what is true and what is fiction.

NuttBoxer says

When sourcing truth, always follow the money.

NuttBoxer says

As with every law, follow the money...

Maybe NutterBoxer should have followed his own advice before posting this fake study and fake news article.

9   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2017 Jul 6, 3:26pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

I gotta give Dan credit on this one, he makes some good points.

BUT... The "study" seems to be nothing more than numbers analysis and trend reporting. Why do you need a climatologist(see any of my lines above about why that title exists), for that? I'd rather have a CPA, or CS degree for something like that. So while I could certainly see the possibility for an ulterior motive here, since it's really just number analysis, unless the linked study also fudged their numbers, I don't think the publishers lack of scientific titles is relevant.

10   Rew   ignore (0)   2017 Jul 6, 3:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

NuttBoxer says

Why do you need a climatologist

Everything you need to know about the opposition in that phrase.

11   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Jul 6, 3:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Your thread title is not correct.
Here is a summary of the report:
1) Surface temperature measurements have obvious flaws. For example, there is the heat island effect, which exaggerates temperature increases near cities, where much of the temperature record is located. These have to be corrected out [ by the way, the correction process reduces the apparent global warming effect ]. Other issues such as the time of day measurements were made have an obvious effect, and must be corrected for.
2) Warming data in 1980 used to indicate 0.4 oC warming between 1880 and 1980. In 2015, the NASA GAST dataset still indicates a 0.4 oC warming between 1880 and 1980. However, the temperature between 1900 and 1950 has been shifted downward by about 0.2 oC. Each revision has been more aggressive about this correction. See figure IV-1 in pdf linked below.
3) No analysis is made about what drove the correction or if it was correct. However, the authors suggest that there might have been some fudging (with no proof, mind you) based on the direction of changes over time. The authors then state that 'Clearly, if the historical data adjustments that were made to the
GAST data inappropriately removed this cyclical pattern, then all
three of the current versions of GAST must be considered
invalid.' This is classic FUD bullshit drivel.

I don't know if the OP actually thinks that temperature adjustments account for most of the global warming in historic data, but they absolutely do not. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the unadjusted data would show a bigger temperature increase due to the heat island effect. That guess agrees with this write-up, which does describe experiments designed to test the adjustment methods.


12   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Jul 6, 4:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

NuttBoxer says

Why do you need a climatologist(see any of my lines above about why that title exists), for that?

Context matters. Feedback loops matter. Physical properties of climate matter.

Honesty matters even more, and these paid shills are not being honest. They are being paid to lied. The money trail has been traced.

Also the peer review process matters. This "study", and we can only use that term very loosely, was not peer reviewed. No real scientific publication would publish it because the data is all cherry picked and does not stand up to scrutiny. This whole study and the article about it is obvious propaganda. It's not even subtle.

13   HEY YOU   ignore (7)   2017 Jul 6, 9:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

I wouldn't wrap my virtual fish with the dailycaller.com virtual paper.

Global warming is about putting on too heavy a blanket of CO2 & then adding a Methane blanket because your too hot.

14   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2017 Jul 7, 9:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rew says

Why do you need a climatologist

Everything you need to know about the opposition in that phrase.

Speaking of cherry picking... Good demonstration of how context matters.

15   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2017 Jul 7, 10:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I'm a climaxtologist, and nobody listens to me.

The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions