Leading AGW/Climate Change Leaders Caught Manipulating Data Again

Hope springs eternal.

Hmm, that was interesting.

Exercise for readers: Figure out the two layers of double-reverse psychology here.

As in they have manipulated the data so many times and so far it might just accidentally be accurate?

No; different topic altogether.

nice thread. I'm expecting a constant stream just like this as the old guard hits the bricks and the new employees dig through the data.

Brown-nosers might be able to narrow it down, though.

So wait, it is getting warmer? Ok maybe, but who says whats the cause of it?

Is it global or regional?

Its not CO2 so far we have narrowed that down.

Air pollution is just a completely different story!

So you are saying it is alright to use the fight against climate to sell the story of green ideas? Pouring Millions of Dollars in climate institutes will solve a pollution problem? Why not fight pollution instead of climate?

Its always astonishing by which means we want to save the world creating the situation which we needs saving from.

It should be clear by now that the whole baloney of the climate hog wash is a partial reason of the success and support for the likes of Donald Trump.

Here is my advise:

learn the basics https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a-conversation-with-an-infrared-radiation-expert/

Go back to the science and do not listen to the political hogwash or youbecome one of the AGW puppets. Compare your opinion with the science. There is not such a thing as an influence of CO2 on climate, because you will not even find an influence on the weather. And climate is statistic over weather.

Illiterate drivel.

Same can be said about your two words!

Suit yourself!

You are in the bucket of deniers and certainly you have no clue about science!

I am not denying anything, you disgusting liar.

Now now, you are denying the debate by ad hominem attacks. Where is your manners?

Tornado, you are wearing off way to fast! Haven't seen a good argument from you here? Whats up? Lyn beats you by length at least he issued a good reply to the OP.

"Is it global or regional?" Does it matter?

"Its not CO2 so far we have narrowed that down." Have we, really? How?

I could go on, but, why?

Because that debate is necessary.

So when I freeze my butt off it does not even help to have warm thoughts about CO2. It matters because I still need to sit down for a good laugh on CR4 here and there!

Yes we did in an earlier thread where we discussed the cooling action of CO2 in the atmosphere. I might dig up the link later.

There is some basic physics involved that does not require a consent (only in a political debate it would). Above was a link for the interested. Its about infrared radiation.

No need to go on if you do not want to!

Have fun!

Mikael Cronholm (MC) is an industry expert on infrared radiation, a licensed, level III Infrared Training Center Instructor

There is no such thing. Maybe a level 3 in ASNT in IR.(ASNT) American Society for Non destructive Testing. Any level 3 in any discipline is certified to be an instructor.

They're arguing over .1 of a degree difference over a decade....who gives a sheit...?

I agree, I didn't read if it was Celsius or Fahrenheit, but at Celsius based on this, statistically speaking with a 95% confidence level (Just makes it), it falls to acceptable levels... statistically speaking. If its Fahrenheit, it then goes to about 97.2% (at a 95% confidence level) well with in range.

And the above attachment is based on a 2ºC (3.6ºF) Change

Either way, the problem is why the differences. if its the manipulation of data, All data will get thrown out after the review if it was manipulated.

It's clear that the definition of "Science" isn't universal. my definition has no political or influence of grant monies attached to it. it's noted all to often the topic has an element of denial to it. I think those most frequently pointing fingers are usually the ones most steeply in denial facts that are manipulated to fit an agenda are no longer facts. some out there find this incredibly difficult to accept like sheep they continue to be herded without using their minds.

My point is, Statistics alone have built in safeguards.

With the data, even if it falls under and acceptable range, if the data was tampered with, its useless all of it connected with the compromised data.

That of course is if the data was tampered with.

If it wasn't tampered with and was just a collection era where it could be traced to. Then the data is good.

sounds like science to me

If it wasn't tampered with and was just a collection era error where it could be traced to. Then the data is good.

An elegant demonstration that proves that simple error correction is not doctoring the data to fit a premise.

Well, not the best example, but a good demonstration that it happens, so one should not jump to conclusions and instead to keep an open mind.

That is hard to do considering the polarization on the subject.

A demonstration, but far from an elegant one regarding mathematical data manipulation to imply a trend or mathematical context that not there Vs spelling error correction and you of all people should know that better than most.

http://www.themarshalltown.com/noaa-and-nasa-continue-to-fake-climate-data/18190

the fraud is unraveling. too bad so many swallowed it hook, line and sinker and are now to embarrassed to admit that because the info they bought into was from the unquestionable wisdom of NASA and NOAA

perhaps a few recipes of CROW should be passed around the room