Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

[sirineou]

Really? are we now going to debate the validity of creationism?

This is all you guys got out of my "Sketchy argument"

my "sketchy argument" was intended to illustrate the different application of the word "belief" as it applies in the subject at hand, which is Global warming and climate change, and it;s affect in the thought process that could lead people to different conclusions .

There are other things I could say, concerning the Amorality of corporate culture bu then we will be arguing that, to be honest I dont know why moderation has alowed this thread to meander so out of topic,

I simply demonstrated that creationism has logical merits and that the belief that industrial culture is evil is merely an emotional attachment; which overlooks the fact that men with wealth and power have been selfish abusers - long before the industrial revolution. Destroy the industrial complex and you find the same inequality and abuse of power popping up immediately. Only we won't have smart phones anymore.

This is not off topic, the motive for fiddling with global warming figures is the belief that industrial culture is evil. It is the same basic propaganda that socialists use to overthrow governments before they can bring in much greater inequality and destructive social policies.

"This is not off topic, the motive for fiddling with global warming figures is the belief that industrial culture is evil. It is the same basic propaganda that socialists use to overthrow governments before they can bring in much greater inequality and destructive social policies."

When attributing motivation for some ones attitudes I think it is prudent to include the caveat "IMO" .

Your above assertion concerning motivations,or even that results were fiddled with is highly arguable and by far not a excepted assertion.

I will admite I am not an expert in the subject,

I am willing to trust those who are, and by far, those who are, support my position

and even if we are wrong, the worst that could happen would be a cleaner earth and maybe some slow down in economic activity

where if you are wrong the survival of humanity might be at stake

So place your bets.

[Thaddeus]

Along with the good and evil dichotomy, there is yet another burning question in my mind.

The big Bang!

What went "bang"???

That was my head hitting the desk.

[sirineou]

Along with the good and evil dichotomy, there is yet another burning question in my mind.

The big Bang!

What went "bang"???

That was my head hitting the desk.

The Big Bang?

I personally thought it was a porno flick

[Thaddeus]

the worst that could happen would be a cleaner earth and maybe some slow down in economic activity

You nailed it right there, there are those pulling the strings who don't care about the first bit and are terrified of the last part.

I'm all for cleaning up the planet cutting down on fossil fuel use, finding cleaner, greener and renewable energy sources (the big bright orange thing in the sky would be a bloody good starting point) use natural rubber not artificial, cut down on the use of plastics etc.

But give the real reason for doing so, don't just pluck something that scares the pants off everyone and then bend the evidence to make it true.

Problem is, the real reason damages profit.

When a certain war was started in a certain country, if the reason given was that the Dictator had to go because he was evil and murdering his own people (oh and they have a bit of oil) most rational people would have said ''go for it'' ....... but no, they thought it was best to lie to the public and came up with a story about weapons of mass destruction.

Do the right thing and do it for the right reasons.

[Jay Sata]

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. The only question is - whose?

It depends who is paying!

[papa al]

The troposphere:

78% Nitrogen

21% Oxygen

00.04% CO2.

Up from 00.03%, pre-industrial.

And this 00.01% change is

is wreaking havoc on the climate?

No.

Edited May 17, 2015 by papa al

[sirineou]

The troposphere:

78% Nitrogen

21% Oxygen

00.04% CO2.

Up from 00.03%, pre-industrial.

And this 00.01% change is

is wreaking havoc on the climate?

No.

Ohhh,...... since you put it that way

why didn't some one mention that before everyone went through all this trouble

PS CO2 is a very potent gas, so much so that it's concentration is measured in PPM's parts per million rather than percentages.if I was you I would check the CO2 concentrations n your area.

"CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.

• If exposed at a level of 2% for several hours, minimal "acidosis" (the acid condition of the blood) may occur (cf. hyperventillation prevention).
• Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.
• Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]

• Symptoms of high or prolonged exposure to carbon dioxide include headache, increased heart rate, dizziness, fatigue, rapid breathing, visual and hearing dysfunctions.
• Exposure to higher levels may cause unconsciousness or death within minutes of exposure.
• Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, andunconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour."

[Thaddeus]

The troposphere:

78% Nitrogen

21% Oxygen

00.04% CO2.

Up from 00.03%, pre-industrial.

And this 00.01% change is

is wreaking havoc on the climate?

No.

Ohhh,...... since you put it that way

why didn't some one mention that before everyone went through all this trouble

PS CO2 is a very potent gas, so much so that it's concentration is measured in PPM's parts per million rather than percentages.if I was you I would check the CO2 concentrations n your area.

"CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.

• If exposed at a level of 2% for several hours, minimal "acidosis" (the acid condition of the blood) may occur (cf. hyperventillation prevention).
• Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.
• Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]

• Symptoms of high or prolonged exposure to carbon dioxide include headache, increased heart rate, dizziness, fatigue, rapid breathing, visual and hearing dysfunctions.
• Exposure to higher levels may cause unconsciousness or death within minutes of exposure.
• Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, andunconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour."

Hot air is way more dangerous.

[sirineou]

The troposphere:

78% Nitrogen

21% Oxygen

00.04% CO2.

Up from 00.03%, pre-industrial.

And this 00.01% change is

is wreaking havoc on the climate?

No.

Ohhh,...... since you put it that way

why didn't some one mention that before everyone went through all this trouble

PS CO2 is a very potent gas, so much so that it's concentration is measured in PPM's parts per million rather than percentages.if I was you I would check the CO2 concentrations n your area.

"CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.

• If exposed at a level of 2% for several hours, minimal "acidosis" (the acid condition of the blood) may occur (cf. hyperventillation prevention).
• Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.
• Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]

• Symptoms of high or prolonged exposure to carbon dioxide include headache, increased heart rate, dizziness, fatigue, rapid breathing, visual and hearing dysfunctions.
• Exposure to higher levels may cause unconsciousness or death within minutes of exposure.
• Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, andunconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour."

Hot air is way more dangerous.

Atmospheric, or the one generated by global warming deniers

[Neurath]

The troposphere:

78% Nitrogen

21% Oxygen

00.04% CO2.

Up from 00.03%, pre-industrial.

And this 00.01% change is

is wreaking havoc on the climate?

No.

Umm, a change in concentration from 0.03% to 0.04% isn't a 0.01% change - it's a change of 33%.

[canuckamuck]

The troposphere:

78% Nitrogen

21% Oxygen

00.04% CO2.

Up from 00.03%, pre-industrial.

And this 00.01% change is

is wreaking havoc on the climate?

No.

Umm, a change in concentration from 0.03% to 0.04% isn't a 0.01% change - it's a change of 33%.

33% more CO2, but a .01% change to the overall mix

[boomerangutang]

This is not off topic, the motive for fiddling with global warming figures is the belief that industrial culture is evil. It is the same basic propaganda that socialists use to overthrow governments before they can bring in much greater inequality and destructive social policies.

The OP didn't prove there had been fiddling with GW numbers. It assumed there had been, and was appointing people (and paying them? ...unless the researchers are working for free) ....to try their darndest to find fiddled-with numbers.

As for motive to do science: the answers are many. Scientists need to make money to get by, just as janitors, astronauts, dope peddlers, pharmacists, Wall St. speculators, booze sellers, et. al. Scientists, with few exceptions, dig up particular data and then make 'findings' to the best of their professional abilities. If you or the OP find any scientists fudging the data, then yes, we should hear about it, and those scientists should be disciplined. But the indiscretions of one or a few scientists (if proven true) should not tar the hundreds of thousands of scientists/researchers who are doing good jobs.

Along with the good and evil dichotomy, there is yet another burning question in my mind.

The big Bang!

What went "bang"???

That was my head hitting the desk.

The Big Bang?

I personally thought it was a porno flick:lol:

No, that was 'The Black Hole' ....sorry for the imagery.

[canuckamuck]

You must been sleeping through the many cases involving evidence fiddling that have been exposed over the years. I am not going to put the effort into cataloguing them for you, I have guests this week. But Rick has brought one up in this thread, and no one can forget the East Anglia email scandal where quite a lot of shenanigans were discussed.

[RickBradford]

Among the countries where climate data-fiddling has recently been outed we can add Paraguay, Switzerland, and Australia.

In Paraguay, which doesn't have much temperature collection coverage, the focus was on the fast-growing capital, Asuncion. The urban heat island effect (UHI) is well documented, and if any adjustments were to be made, it would be to raise historical temperatures to compensate for UHI. Uh-uh. NASA decreased the old temperatures by 0.4C to try to make the warming trend look stronger.

In Switzerland, they altered the temperature records in various cities (to increase apparent warming, of course), but couldn't get it right.

“Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists,” according to [Dr. H.]Sterling [burnett].

Australia's BOM is notorious for adjusting temperatures to suit a preconceived narrative. There may sometimes be legitimate reasons for adjusting raw temperature data -- UHI, new sensors, changed location, and so on. But in Australia, these adjustments virtually always exaggerate the supposed warming trend.

In some cases, the data-fiddling was as much as 4C of imaginary warming, which rather puts the 0.8C of actual warming since 1880 into perspective.

Of course, all these shenanigans are perfectly acceptable to global warming zealots, who regard ignorance as the only honest form of knowledge, but to anyone with an ounce more sense than a billiard ball is clear evidence of agenda-based science.

If reality collides with Green/Left feel-good fantasies, then it is reality that must give way.

[sdanielmcev]

NASA does not, and never has, endorse scientific papers of any kind. While some scientists involved in the debate may be NASA associated, the governmental body, NASA, is not involved. Claiming NASA association or endorsement is false.

[RickBradford]

NASA does not, and never has, endorse scientific papers of any kind. While some scientists involved in the debate may be NASA associated, the governmental body, NASA, is not involved. Claiming NASA association or endorsement is false.

I don't know if you're trying to be deliberately misleading, or are simply woefully ignorant.

There is an entire sub-division inside NASA called GISS (the Goddard Institute for Space Studies) which describes itself thus:

"A key objective of GISS research is prediction of atmospheric and climate changes in the 21st century. Program areas at GISS may be roughly divided into the categories of climate forcings, model development, Earth observations, atmospheric radiation, atmospheric chemistry, climate impacts, paleoclimate, planetary atmospheres and astrobiology, and other disciplines."

It maintains one of the most widely cited global temperature indices (GISTEMP), publishes hundreds of scientific papers on climate every year and was run for 32 years by the infamous James Hansen, an unapologetic climate activist who pulled every trick in the book to push the notion of dangerous climate change and who was sometimes referred to in the press as "the godfather of global warming science."

There's hardly a scientific organisation on the planet more heavily invested in the climate debate than NASA GISS.

[sdanielmcev]

NASA does not, and never has, endorse scientific papers of any kind. While some scientists involved in the debate may be NASA associated, the governmental body, NASA, is not involved. Claiming NASA association or endorsement is false.

I don't know if you're trying to be deliberately misleading, or are simply woefully ignorant.

There is an entire sub-division inside NASA called GISS (the Goddard Institute for Space Studies) which describes itself thus:

"A key objective of GISS research is prediction of atmospheric and climate changes in the 21st century. Program areas at GISS may be roughly divided into the categories of climate forcings, model development, Earth observations, atmospheric radiation, atmospheric chemistry, climate impacts, paleoclimate, planetary atmospheres and astrobiology, and other disciplines."

It maintains one of the most widely cited global temperature indices (GISTEMP), publishes hundreds of scientific papers on climate every year and was run for 32 years by the infamous James Hansen, an unapologetic climate activist who pulled every trick in the book to push the notion of dangerous climate change and who was sometimes referred to in the press as "the godfather of global warming science."

There's hardly a scientific organisation on the planet more heavily invested in the climate debate than NASA GISS.

You are correct. I probably didn't state myself properly. Subsets of NASA may claim they are NASA-related, however NASA itself, endorses no claims.

[boomerangutang]

So now deniers, if they can't justify their stance by looking at the data, will try and shoot the messengers. The OP mentions the witch hunt study will be looking for 'fiddled global warming figures' ....but have they found any thus far? Let's see. But keep in mind there are tens of thousands of scientists involved with GW on one level or another. Some of those scientists are focusing on other fields, but some of their data may apply to the GW picture. If it's found that some data was fudged, that's lamentable, but it shouldn't besmirch the entire scientific community of non-deniers.

Meanwhile, look at what's happening on the global scene. Do you see more droughts? greater calving of Antarctic ice? more melting of Greenland? more intense tropical storms? shrinking glaciers? increased methane releases at permafrost, larger migrations of desperate people? Those are some indications of a warming planet.

It's easy to look the other way, particularly for those who either don't care or don't want to see it. Most of us will be compost in a few decades or less, but there are new generations who will have to try to eke out an existence in a world their ancestors befouled with gross amounts of fossil fuel emissions. Deniers can say, "so what. I won't be around in 40+ years from now. I've had my fun. Let future generations tough it out. It's not my problem."

[RickBradford]

Subsets of NASA may claim they are NASA-related, however NASA itself, endorses no claims.

Excuse me. They don't "claim they are NASA-related". They are an integral part of NASA.

Their personnel are affiliated to NASA, they are all paid by NASA, you email them at nasa.gov, and all their press releases refer to their work as 'NASA studies'.

For example, a press release on drought begins 'NASA Study Finds 1934 Had Worst Drought of Last Thousand Years' and goes on to reference the study's author as 'climate scientist Ben Cook at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.'

It could hardly be clearer, could it?

To say that "NASA itself, endorses no claims" is a plain falsehood.

[sdanielmcev]

Goddard is a division of NASA. Since this is off topic I will say no more.

[canuckamuck]

^^Only so far you can split a hair