- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BOOM, New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Govt.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:00 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:00 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:has a different definition of truth than most people.
Ace Midnight
Wiki disagrees, probably no right wingers have computers
It's a conspiracy!!!
0
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:01 pm to Tigah in the ATL
Lol at someone calling this site 'well organized'. High-info voters 'round these parts, for sure. Endless articles about climate change and... two about the human cornea. Seems legit.
I love this notion that scientists can only make money and build a career by falling in line with the nefarious global warming agenda. As if they can't become hack apologists banked by giant energy companies (incidentally, I'm wondering why it's so hard to find sources of funding for 'principia scientific').
This is all gold, though. From the cocksure OP to the expressions of tepid support from other posters(who fear that mainstream media will 'ignore' the incontrovertible evidence because the source seems to be a bit biased).
I wouldn't trust a trained writer to improve this thread. Red America makes satire redundant.
I love this notion that scientists can only make money and build a career by falling in line with the nefarious global warming agenda. As if they can't become hack apologists banked by giant energy companies (incidentally, I'm wondering why it's so hard to find sources of funding for 'principia scientific').
This is all gold, though. From the cocksure OP to the expressions of tepid support from other posters(who fear that mainstream media will 'ignore' the incontrovertible evidence because the source seems to be a bit biased).
I wouldn't trust a trained writer to improve this thread. Red America makes satire redundant.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:01 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:oh and it's quite funny that you're claiming they "fudged the data" in a thread linked to a GW denier who fudged his interpretation of the data.
That confirmed they fudged the data. That's true.
You guys remember 99% of the accusations ever made of people with whom you disagree and remember 1% of the fail from those with whom you agree. I should call you 1 per centers.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:05 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Is it the fact that you guys are from the South or Republican or both that you buck 97% of the scientists in this field?
No - the fact that I see through all of this.
Fossil fuels will be burned until they are exhausted - if not by us - by China, India, Russia. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. I'm not a child - I recognize that man has extreme effects on the environment, particularly urban development, highly dense populations, our waste, etc.
But, we're talking about a few tenths of a degree - based on actual temperature records that are statistically zero - from the mid-19th century to now would represent 1 point on a graph for anything meaningful. I refuse to accept that we have to take draconian measures and return to the stone age, starving billions of people along the way, merely to avoid this few tenths change, that absolutely will reverse at some point and have a cooling trend.
The Sun is 99% of the mass of the solar system and the only appreciable source of energy - its cycle is far more determinative of surface temperatures on this planet than any sort of distribution of trace elements in the atmosphere.
PARTICULARLY, when only the West is even being asked to do anything about it - I see this for what it is and why the powers-that-be pursue this, but I do not concur.
Good day, sir.
This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 11:08 pm
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:16 pm to UL-SabanRival
Wow! A AGW denier site says AGW isn't true!
I AM SO frickING SURPRISED
I AM SO frickING SURPRISED
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:18 pm to UL-SabanRival
quote:
British legal analyst and science writer, John O’Sullivan pursued a vision to form a large body of experts united in opposing the worst excesses of government-funded science. By working as a team PSI is succeeding where lone voices had failed. From the outset PSI was driven by retired Dutch Analytical Chemist, Hans Schreuder, Texan engineer and science writer, Joseph A. Olson and Canada's most popular climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. Dr. Ball was our first appointed Chair of PSI and his reputation endures as a popular figure in the campaign against junk science. In 2013 John Sanderson became our new Chairman.
In July 2011 PSI published the first of a series of science papers under the optimistic banner of Principia Scientific International. All PSI's published papers are thoroughly peer-reviewed among a team of highly qualified experts. PSI is particularly proud of all it’s papers not least our first by Biologist, Professor Nasif Nahle and Astrophysicist, Joe Postma. These and all our subsequent free-to-view papers are located in the 'Publications' section of this website.
What an illustrious set of founders!
A couple of science writers, a retired chemist, a single climatogist who we know is qualified since he is "popular", and an astrophysicsist without a PhD. Awesome! This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 11:20 pm
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:21 pm to Scruffy
quote:
We will see how this plays out
Seriously? Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:25 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
In other news... a survey of Catholic priest revealed 99.8% of them believed in God. Thus, it is proven that God exists.
You're actually comparing the beliefs of priests and the findings of scientists?
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:28 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
No - the fact that I see through all of this.
Says the crazy man standing on the tracks when asked "Aren't you afraid of that oncoming train?"
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:29 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
You're actually comparing the beliefs of priests and the findings of scientists?
PSI is a group of fraudsters. Its founder is a lawyer, not a scientist.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:38 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:Of course not. Just the concept of consensus.
You're actually comparing the beliefs of priests and the findings of scientists?
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:46 pm to Taxing Authority
It's too bad PSI wasn't around 50 years ago. We missed seminal classics like, "Survey shows babies prefer asbestos and lead paint chips to apples and Lays potato chips" and "Shocker!! Doctors agree that smoking tobacco less dangerous than criticizing Big Tobacco"
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:47 pm to Taxing Authority
Everything I know outside of my area of expertise, in any subject, I rely upon the consensus of experts in that field especially if the consensus is in the upper 90s. My mom is in her 70s and going through some medical issues. I go with her to her doctors' appointments. I ask questions and follow it up with research. When I see a consensus, I trust it and tell her.
However, when it comes to faith, if I trusted the consensus on that, I'd be a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a (fill in the blank) because their monks, rabbis etc all have a consensus in their respective beliefs. However there is no consensus on God, hence we have 1000 religions.
However, when it comes to faith, if I trusted the consensus on that, I'd be a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a (fill in the blank) because their monks, rabbis etc all have a consensus in their respective beliefs. However there is no consensus on God, hence we have 1000 religions.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:51 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:Ok.
Everything I know outside of my area of expertise, in any subject, I rely upon the consensus of experts in that field especially if the consensus is in the upper 90s.
quote:I do hope she's well, VB.
My mom is in her 70s and going through some medical issues.
quote:A good thing to do. I don't advocate faith. Nor trust in consensus.
I ask questions and follow it up with research.
quote:Your choice.
However, when it comes to faith, if I trusted the consensus on that, I'd be a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a (fill in the blank) because their monks, rabbis etc all have a consensus in their respective beliefs.
This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 11:53 pm
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:53 pm to UL-SabanRival
quote:
Goddard reports,
"indepedent data analyst Steve Goddard"
LINK
quote:
Risk Team Leader at DataCash
Posted on 1/27/14 at 11:57 pm to Taxing Authority
Thanks TA. Another appointment tomorrow. 
Posted on 1/28/14 at 12:01 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:Give her the Poli-Board's best!
Another appointment tomorrow.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 12:32 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Of course not. Just the concept of consensus.
Sadly, Rex's sig quote actually works quite well here.
Something to the nature of "if 80,000 people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 3:18 am to UL-SabanRival
quote:
The jig. She is up, señor.
LINK
quote:
A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official "raw" temperature record. Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.
quote:
Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.
Well damn.
quote:
Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today
This dude has been pushing this sh** for years and has been slapped down multiple times.
Steven Goddard WordPress
"The Register" articles by Steven Goddard 2008
Rebuttal
2008
The Scientific Blog report "About that Arctic sea ice …By Steven Goddard" Admits Error
But his most recent effort was even worse, claiming that the NSIDC’s graph of Arctic sea ice extent was wrong and that there was 30% more sea ice than at the corresponding time last year.
quote:
But it was Goddard who was wrong, as NSIDC’s Walt Meier explained to the Register:
He appears to derive his estimate by simply counting pixels in an image. He recognizes that this results in an error due to the distortion by the map projection, but does so anyway. Such an approach is simply not valid.
If you correct Goddard’s error, you get the same number as the NSIDC. Meier adds:
Besides this significant error, the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed.
Goddard admitted he was wrong but, as noted by Joseph Romm, Kevin Grandia and James Hrynyshyn, the numerous denialists who claimed that Goddard had shown that the ice wasn’t melting have mysteriously failed to correct things.
quote:
A second important issue with NASA’s presentation is that they use the time period of 1951-1980 as their choice of baseline. This was a well known cold spell, as can be seen in the 1999 version of the NASA US temperature graph below.
Why use a graph of US temperatures instead of world temperatures? The “cold spell” is more pronounced in the US graph. In fact, the average for 1951-1980 is almost the same as for the 20th century so it is misleading to call it a cold spell. Goddard prefers to use satellite data, with a baseline that is significantly warmer than the 20th century average, to try to making warming seem less. He does some more cherry picking when he presents a map of GISS temperatures leaving out the sea data and using 250km smoothing (even though the NASA used 1200km smoothing for the temperature graphs) in order to make it look like there are significant gaps in NASA’s coverage. He compounds this by picking a month where this makes it look like there is a warming bias in NASA’s temperatures.
So let me get this straight.
To disprove 98% of scientific community data as a giant hoax designed to get money and scare people.
UL-SabanRival is citing a person who came to his conclusion in a previous report by counting pixels on the screen rather than looking at the actual data to back up his claims. A person has been known on multiple occasions to cherry pick data to support his point. In addition, he admitted glaring errors in his previous report.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 8:51 am to UL-SabanRival
Anyone who thinks this is a death-knell underestimates the depth and breadth of the scam and the willingness of those involved to perpetuate it at any cost.
Data from Nasa and Cern should have been a death knell and yet they press on. The emails admitting the hoax should have been the death knell but here we are facing executive orders on GW. Hell, the fact that we went from global cooling, to global warming, to climate change should have been the death knell.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing, as a complict media will fail to report anything contradictory and the "redistribution through climate change policy" advocates will push forward. It is up to an ignorant American populace to inform itself and that may never happen.
Data from Nasa and Cern should have been a death knell and yet they press on. The emails admitting the hoax should have been the death knell but here we are facing executive orders on GW. Hell, the fact that we went from global cooling, to global warming, to climate change should have been the death knell.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing, as a complict media will fail to report anything contradictory and the "redistribution through climate change policy" advocates will push forward. It is up to an ignorant American populace to inform itself and that may never happen.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News