|
|
Post by Sailor on Oct 30, 2015 13:11:21 GMT -8
What's NOAA Hiding? Agency Leaves Congress in the DarkFirst there was ClimateGate, the scandal that broke in 2009 when a hacker exposed extensive data belonging to the UK’s University of East Anglia. That data, which unveiled scandalous email correspondence and a fallacious methodology dubbed the “fudge factor,” revealed a concerted effort by some of the world’s most influential climate scientists to keep evidence of global cooling in a shroud of secrecy. As we noted at the time, it was the biggest scandal to rock the scientific world in quite some time. After all, environmental policy is based on what the measurements depict — that’s the claim, at least — but those measurements were manipulated and exploited by the purveyors of climate alarmism. That malfeasance, however, appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. Skeptical scientists have long rejected climate hyperbole. One reason is that satellite temperature measurements continue to depict a warming hiatus, which now stands at 18 years 8 months. Faced with growing pressure to address the chatter, a group of warmists tried to quash those claims in a study published in June. According to the authors, NOAA’s own findings “do not support the notion of a ‘slowdown’ in the increase of global surface temperature.” The researchers even rejected the IPCC’s recent conclusion that a slowdown indeed did happen. Fine, so let’s see all the evidence. Oh, wait, we can’t, because the authors would rather keep some of it a secret. According to the journal Nature, “Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who leads the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, asked NOAA in July for the data used in the study and for any internal communications related to it. NOAA has provided the committee with the publicly available data and has briefed committee staff on the research, but the agency has not turned over the communications.” Nor does it plan to. “Although NOAA’s latest response to the committee skirted the issue, the agency suggests in a 27 October statement to Nature that it has no intention of handing over documents that reveal its internal deliberations.” Nothing to see here, right? Smith contends, “NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda.” The Investor’s Business Daily editorial board observed, “What’s strange is that major temperature revisions by NOAA and others in recent years have always been up — never down — a clear sign of possible bias.” The agency can put these allegations to rest with a little transparency. But it won’t, which leads us to just one conclusion: The ClimateGate fraud is bigger and more malicious than anyone realizes. patriotpost.us/posts/38576
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Oct 30, 2015 21:22:17 GMT -8
Problem is, NOBODY of any reputation argues the point.
NOBODY.
We've discussed this one before.
Whose the next fall guy?
NASA?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Oct 31, 2015 7:10:22 GMT -8
I put this up because NOAA HAS rejiggered the data, apparently more than once which has changed the charted trends. And not only NOAA has done this as the article indicated but other agencies as well. The refusal of NOAA to provide the information and emails subpoenaed by the House Committee on Science only causes more questions including the inevitable (to me) "what the hell are they hiding?". www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/26/us-congress-to-investigate-noaas-temperature-adjustments/Oh, the subpoenae is from the House Committee, NOT the GOP as Rep. Johnson (D-TX) claims. Neither the GOP or Democratic Party have subpoenae powers (thank God.) It's funny you mention NASA because it's NASA's satellite observation data which runs counter to the NOAA and other computer models. And some "climate change" supporters (Harvard) are now insulting the rest of us by stating that higher atmospheric CO2 levels are rendering us more stupid. Are THEY somehow immune to the effect if it is true? dailycaller.com/2015/10/27/scientists-claim-high-co2-levels-are-making-people-dumber/ |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Oct 31, 2015 9:28:57 GMT -8
I put this up because NOAA HAS rejiggered the data, apparently more than once which has changed the charted trends. And not only NOAA has done this as the article indicated but other agencies as well. The refusal of NOAA to provide the information and emails subpoenaed by the House Committee on Science only causes more questions including the inevitable (to me) "what the hell are they hiding?". www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/26/us-congress-to-investigate-noaas-temperature-adjustments/Oh, the subpoenae is from the House Committee, NOT the GOP as Rep. Johnson (D-TX) claims. Neither the GOP or Democratic Party have subpoenae powers (thank God.) It's funny you mention NASA because it's NASA's satellite observation data which runs counter to the NOAA and other computer models. And some "climate change" supporters (Harvard) are now insulting the rest of us by stating that higher atmospheric CO2 levels are rendering us more stupid. Are THEY somehow immune to the effect if it is true? dailycaller.com/2015/10/27/scientists-claim-high-co2-levels-are-making-people-dumber/EVERY agency in this administration has been politicized to the max, NOAA and NASA included. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Nov 1, 2015 6:23:49 GMT -8
No, sorry. Not buying it. ANY of it. I've monitored climate change now since 1980, before any of it got to being part of the current liberal/conservative bullshit that dominates everything that has anything to do with our lives. And I don't give a fuck about the Obama Administration. Anyone that has any credibility of any worth on this planet has agreed that climate change is real. The science proves it, the statistics prove it, the fact that about two hundred countries agree with the realities of climate change prove it. I am fucking TIRED of proving it. I've argued this, and produced DOZENS of fucking websites and organizations that agree. I'm not going to even fucking BOTHER to do it again. Believe what you will. I really don't care. And as for "EVERY agency in this administration has been politicized to the max, NOAA and NASA included", EVERYBODY that disagrees with the Right about climate change is a tool of the Obama Administration... right?  |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Nov 1, 2015 10:47:57 GMT -8
"Anyone that has any credibility of any worth on this planet has agreed that climate change is real. The science proves it, the statistics prove it, the fact that about two hundred countries agree with the realities of climate change prove it. I am fucking TIRED of proving it. I've argued this, and produced DOZENS of fucking websites and organizations that agree."
Actually, NONE of that is true, logical fallacies (ipse dixit, ad populum) notwithstanding.
It hasn't been proven. When data is being manipulated and withheld, ALL conclusions should be suspect to anyone with a brain.
Science is not done by consensus. Science demands proof.
"And as for "EVERY agency in this administration has been politicized to the max, NOAA and NASA included", EVERYBODY that disagrees with the Right about climate change is a tool of the Obama Administration...right?"
No, but many are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Nov 1, 2015 11:51:48 GMT -8
"When data is being manipulated and withheld, ALL conclusions should be suspect to anyone with a brain." And "Science is not done by consensus. Science demands proof" as well as challenge.
Thank you. Those make up my point. Good science results from challenging accepted beliefs. Where the hell would we be if Galileo, Copernicus, Sir Issac and others from all branches of science hadn't challenged the accepted status quo? Science would likely still be stuck in the worst part of the Middle Ages, and I for one would be dead. Medical science of that day couldn't properly diagnose cancer let alone treat it.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Nov 2, 2015 2:43:34 GMT -8
"Anyone that has any credibility of any worth on this planet has agreed that climate change is real. The science proves it, the statistics prove it, the fact that about two hundred countries agree with the realities of climate change prove it. I am fucking TIRED of proving it. I've argued this, and produced DOZENS of fucking websites and organizations that agree." Actually, NONE of that is true, logical fallacies ( ipse dixit, ad populum) notwithstanding. It hasn't been proven. When data is being manipulated and withheld, ALL conclusions should be suspect to anyone with a brain. Science is not done by consensus. Science demands proof. "And as for "EVERY agency in this administration has been politicized to the max, NOAA and NASA included", EVERYBODY that disagrees with the Right about climate change is a tool of the Obama Administration...right?" No, but many are. LIke I said, "Beieve what you will". And I assure you, I have a brain. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Nov 2, 2015 5:06:11 GMT -8
"Anyone that has any credibility of any worth on this planet has agreed that climate change is real. The science proves it, the statistics prove it, the fact that about two hundred countries agree with the realities of climate change prove it. I am fucking TIRED of proving it. I've argued this, and produced DOZENS of fucking websites and organizations that agree." Actually, NONE of that is true, logical fallacies ( ipse dixit, ad populum) notwithstanding. It hasn't been proven. When data is being manipulated and withheld, ALL conclusions should be suspect to anyone with a brain. Science is not done by consensus. Science demands proof. Actually, ALL of it is true, and I am NOT going back to prove it AGAIN, as I once did. It HAS been proven, as best as science on this planet is capable of. If you don't accept it, that is your privilege. I DO accept it. If and when someone proves otherwise, and it is accepted by the majority of scientists on this planet, I'll accept THAT, just like I accept that the majority of them are smarter than I am, and know more about what their majors in college are than I do.
Till then, I accept what the majority of scientists have to say: That global warming is REAL, REGARDLESS of whether you are Democratic/liberal/etc. or Republican/conservative/etc. Believe what you will. When it comes to science, I believe scientists.
And I always will. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Nov 2, 2015 9:23:58 GMT -8
You can't prove a negative, Warrior.
"When it comes to science, I believe scientists."
Throughout history, science by consensus taught us that the sun revolved around the earth, which was flat, bleeding was a proper treatment for illness, and man could never leave the ground.
Global warming has been occurring since the end of the Little Ice Age.
The notion that the earth has a thermostat that can be controlled by regulating CO2 emissions is a little to extreme for me.
Believe what YOU will.
Good day.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Nov 3, 2015 4:59:29 GMT -8
You can't prove a negative, Warrior. "When it comes to science, I believe scientists." There is no negative in that statement. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Nov 3, 2015 10:40:29 GMT -8
You can't prove a negative, Warrior. "When it comes to science, I believe scientists." There is no negative in that statement. You're asking for proof of the negative to change your opinion (yesterday at 5:06am). I think you mean you believe SOME scientists, just not the ones who dispute the unproven hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. Good day. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Nov 3, 2015 18:17:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Nov 4, 2015 8:41:41 GMT -8
Science is not done by consensus. Guess you missed that part. Unless, of course, you wish to return to the days when the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. Good day. |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Nov 4, 2015 9:48:35 GMT -8
Here's something that may make us HOPE or WISH for global warming. Some scientists who make their living watching the Sun are predicting a solar energy slowdown approaching that of the 'Maunder minimum' that brought about the 'Little Ice Age' of the 1600s. I realize this flies in the face of the 'Climate Change, nee Global Warming' claims. But the solar 'slowdown' seems to have already begun. Don't sell your thermal long johns and snow mobiles just yet. www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates |
|
