EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend

[farmerbyron]

I guess the toxic haze is a myth in China? Seeing man can't affect his environment an all....

There is no doubt man can locally disturb the environment. But drive your happy a$$ an hour away and that influence is gone. I've always laughed at the people (environmentalists) whom opposed nuclear energy or advocate recycling because "we have no place to put it." Those people obviously have never set out to drive across the western US. It's a big a$$ed world out there and people need to go see it so they can get some perspective on how insignificant that humanity is.

Also these same people want to "save endangered species". How is that not unnaturally altering the ecosystem? Species come and species go, it's called evolution.

 

[farmerbyron]

You bring up very good points. A fluctuation in temperature and conditions IS normal, and more drastic ones have happened but shown to have happened over a significant period of time. The speed at which they are occuring is the variable here.

Also, in terms of data FOR gun control is easily disproven as all of the data I've seen that provides backing is filled with cherry picking and junk science at best. All data is not the same, nor is the method by which it was gathered. So I'm going to have to disagree that credible data lies on both sides of any issue. Rather the amount of repeatable results within each subject at the very least, can be very different.

The core of scientific theory is to be able to experiment and create repeatable conclusions by isolating variables. This is why things like the vaccine debate are so one sided. You can isolate all the variables except one and get a predictable result.

The climate is more difficult to experiment on and remove variables just due to the scale of it. The climate fluctuations are not really on a human time scale. Sure we can look at ice cores and such to get a guesstimate of what the temperature was thousands of years ago but getting very specific degrees in Fahrenheit readings from anything more than 150 years ago is impossible. Hell, even readings from 75 years ago would be so sparsely located that it would be impossible to get an accurate global dataset.

I guess I'm just more skeptical than you on catastrophic man made GW. If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. (Can't remember the exact quote)

 

[JD8]

There is no doubt man can locally disturb the environment. But drive your happy a$$ an hour away and that influence is gone. I've always laughed at the people (environmentalists) whom opposed nuclear energy or advocate recycling because "we have no place to put it." Those people obviously have never set out to drive across the western US. It's a big a$$ed world out there and people need to go see it so they can get some perspective on how insignificant that humanity is.

Also these same people want to "save endangered species". How is that not unnaturally altering the ecosystem? Species come and species go, it's called evolution.

http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=397

Gonna have to disagree, if you dump heavy metals, carbon etc in the Arkansas river, it doesn't go away because you can drive to western Oklahoma. It's just someone else's problem and it doesn't go away. Same thing here.

Now I'm not on every "endangered species" bandwagon... however.... it would be laughable to deny that some animals have had a significant impact on local and regional ecosystems. Being in Oklahoma, the buffalo comes to mind.

 

[Glocktogo]

I posted a tiny fraction of studies, some with repeatable results...... every one of those studies is corrupt? Overseas organizations are all corrupt or compromised too? Sorry, but I can't get on board with the tinfoil hat on this one. Worst case scenario the NOAA is "compromised." What for?

Look, let's examine the links you posted. Right off the bat, the majority of them are subscription services, so the hard science can't even be viewed (if they contain such). The synopses that are readable use a lot of soft words and no hard evidence.

Of the readable ones, one is likewise full of soft descriptors and suggests causes not directly linked, while also not ruling out or even accounting for other potential factors. The one from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contains NO science and reads like an anti-capitalist pamphlet. The UN is widely known to be corrupt, so it would take HARD numbers that account for other environmental factors for me to even consider what they have to say on the subject.

Of all the links you posted, only the "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide" from The Royal Society is compelling. It contains hard scientific data and the Working Group membership is pretty impressive. However, it deals with acidification of ocean water and not climate change. It also spends energy on socioeconomic impact, which shouldn't factor into a technical science paper on water chemistry. It actually takes away from what is otherwise a pretty compelling argument.

I don't know whether you assumed no one would actually read the links you posted, or even if you read them all? You threw a bunch of stuff up on the wall and most of it didn't stick.

My mind is not made up on the subject. For one thing, all you have to do is stand behind a diesel machine or airplane to figure out that emissions aren't great for the environment. That being said, the United States USED to be one of the worst offenders during the industrial revolution. Even as recently as the 50's and 60's, there were significant pollution levels in major cities in America. No longer is that the case.

If you look at light duty emissions standards globally, the United States LEADS the rest of the world. Canada, Japan and South Korea are next. The EU and Australia are next and the rest are significantly farther behind. You can't even compare the emissions of a power plant in the U.S. to one in China.

So I'm all for "let's save the planet". I'm not for lame assed attempts to blame America's affluence as a significant portion of the problem. The less affluent you are, the more likely you drive a car that doesn't have the latest fuel and emissions improvements. If anything, emerging global economies are a bigger issue. If you really want to get into the weeds, China, Indonesia and the major OPEC producers are a far greater issue.

You can even make a case that the "greenies" in the U.S. are making it more difficult to lower emissions. By preventing the introduction of new modernized refineries, they are inadvertently keeping our emissions higher. The more you refine a product, the longer it takes and the more it costs. Using old tech and equipment makes it more costly.

I already drive ULEV II rated vehicles, use LED lights in my house, turn off lights, computers and appliances when not in use, etc. My energy bills are as low as I can make them because I can't afford to waste money. Even at work, I turn off running faucets and unused lights as a habit. So I don't need some pinhead with a private jet and 10,000 sq. ft. mansion admonishing me on energy efficiency.

If I could change one thing, it would be water usage. I don't water my lawn and only water my foundation and trees if they're threatened by drought. I don't have a pool or any other water wasting feature. What I do have is terrible water quality, to the point we use jugged and bottled water for food prep and consumption. The difference is huge. If my rural water district could filter and deliver water that was at all palatable, I'd do away with bottled water entirely. I'd pay more per gallon from them if they could do that.

So I'm not sure I give a rat's ass what the greens have to say, until they go forth and whip those other polluters into shape, or at least the shape we're in. Until then, my give a damn meter is pegged.

 

[dennishoddy]

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

 

[JD8]

Look, let's examine the links you posted. Right off the bat, the majority of them are subscription services, so the hard science can't even be viewed (if they contain such). The synopses that are readable use a lot of soft words and no hard evidence.

Of the readable ones, one is likewise full of soft descriptors and suggests causes not directly linked, while also not ruling out or even accounting for other potential factors. The one from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contains NO science and reads like an anti-capitalist pamphlet. The UN is widely known to be corrupt, so it would take HARD numbers that account for other environmental factors for me to even consider what they have to say on the subject.

Of all the links you posted, only the "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide" from The Royal Society is compelling. It contains hard scientific data and the Working Group membership is pretty impressive. However, it deals with acidification of ocean water and not climate change. It also spends energy on socioeconomic impact, which shouldn't factor into a technical science paper on water chemistry. It actually takes away from what is otherwise a pretty compelling argument.

I don't know whether you assumed no one would actually read the links you posted, or even if you read them all? You threw a bunch of stuff up on the wall and most of it didn't stick.

My mind is not made up on the subject. For one thing, all you have to do is stand behind a diesel machine or airplane to figure out that emissions aren't great for the environment. That being said, the United States USED to be one of the worst offenders during the industrial revolution. Even as recently as the 50's and 60's, there were significant pollution levels in major cities in America. No longer is that the case.

If you look at light duty emissions standards globally, the United States LEADS the rest of the world. Canada, Japan and South Korea are next. The EU and Australia are next and the rest are significantly farther behind. You can't even compare the emissions of a power plant in the U.S. to one in China.

So I'm all for "let's save the planet". I'm not for lame assed attempts to blame America's affluence as a significant portion of the problem. The less affluent you are, the more likely you drive a car that doesn't have the latest fuel and emissions improvements. If anything, emerging global economies are a bigger issue. If you really want to get into the weeds, China, Indonesia and the major OPEC producers are a far greater issue.

You can even make a case that the "greenies" in the U.S. are making it more difficult to lower emissions. By preventing the introduction of new modernized refineries, they are inadvertently keeping our emissions higher. The more you refine a product, the longer it takes and the more it costs. Using old tech and equipment makes it more costly.

I already drive ULEV II rated vehicles, use LED lights in my house, turn off lights, computers and appliances when not in use, etc. My energy bills are as low as I can make them because I can't afford to waste money. Even at work, I turn off running faucets and unused lights as a habit. So I don't need some pinhead with a private jet and 10,000 sq. ft. mansion admonishing me on energy efficiency.

If I could change one thing, it would be water usage. I don't water my lawn and only water my foundation and trees if they're threatened by drought. I don't have a pool or any other water wasting feature. What I do have is terrible water quality, to the point we use jugged and bottled water for food prep and consumption. The difference is huge. If my rural water district could filter and deliver water that was at all palatable, I'd do away with bottled water entirely. I'd pay more per gallon from them if they could do that.

So I'm not sure I give a rat's ass what the greens have to say, until they go forth and whip those other polluters into shape, or at least the shape we're in. Until then, my give a damn meter is pegged.

Many links provide an abstract at the very least, some to full text I believe. I can't be responsible if there's a subscription service as many PRJs do, especially if they are recent. I tried my best to post again.... a fraction of what is out there. I'm sure it's all bogus to those here but I'll take at the very least the primer of what's been relayed in lieu of.... "hey the NOAA, NASA, etc have all been compromised." That "sticks" quite a bit more to the wall to me... but YMMV.

Also, Ocean acidification is a phenomenon that is a significant variable within climate change as CO2 exchange with the ocean is a fundamental process. Kind of goes back to what I'm saying as the more in depth people get into this they want to discount phenomenon or variables due to a lack of understanding.

Finally, I'm fine with the rest of your rant, I actually agree on most of it. Especially, on the hypocrisy of refining methods. Just because someone agrees with, understands, and supports discussion about climate change doesn't mean they want to follow a political red herring intent to restrict your rights. If anything it's to invite objective discussion with critical thinking and scientific understanding and the OP's posts and many more like it just don't allow for that. The fundamentals just aren't there and many just follow a contrast to a fake political stance.

 

[YukonGlocker]

The core of scientific theory is to be able to experiment and create repeatable conclusions by isolating variables. This is why things like the vaccine debate are so one sided. You can isolate all the variables except one and get a predictable result.

The climate is more difficult to experiment on and remove variables just due to the scale of it. The climate fluctuations are not really on a human time scale. Sure we can look at ice cores and such to get a guesstimate of what the temperature was thousands of years ago but getting very specific degrees in Fahrenheit readings from anything more than 150 years ago is impossible. Hell, even readings from 75 years ago would be so sparsely located that it would be impossible to get an accurate global dataset.

I guess I'm just more skeptical than you on catastrophic man made GW. If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. (Can't remember the exact quote)

Experimentation is one way to gain knowledge in a scientific way, but not the only method. Correlational methods are just as powerful, and have benefits that experimental methods don't. Correlational methods and results are often mis-used and mis-interpreted, but when used correctly are just as much "core" to science as experimentation is. Much of the best "science" combines experimental and correlational methods in the understanding of phenomena. Advanced computational methods in the domain of correlation has made great advances in this area also (e.g., isolating and controlling for a myriad of related/unrelated variables), especially when combined with the variable we call *time*...much of this under the umbrella of "time series analyses". Time series analyses are particularly valuable when it comes to understanding (and quantifying) changes in temperature *over time*. Bring in the power (and necessity) of replication (as GMThunder has mentioned), all these methods together paint a pretty clear picture of climate change...one that has incredible levels of evidence and consensus (levels rarely seen in science).

 

[EFsDad]

I once posted on a Oklahoma sustainability website that I thought any warming could be linked to the big ball of nuclear fission that anchors our planet to this solar system. I was asked if I had any PRJs that would substantiate my claim.

 

[RugersGR8]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/
Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal
DECEMBER 22, 2015

...“Given the lawless refusal to comply with our FOIA request and a congressional subpoena, we have little doubt that the documents will show the Obama administration put politics before science to advance global warming alarmism.”...

 

[RugersGR8]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/
Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal
DECEMBER 22, 2015

...“Given the lawless refusal to comply with our FOIA request and a congressional subpoena, we have little doubt that the documents will show the Obama administration put politics before science to advance global warming alarmism.”...

If the GWs and CCs say there is sooooooooooooo muuuuuuuuuuuuch unquestionable/incontrovertible proof to back up their claims, why is it like pulling hen's teeth to get that unquestionable/incontrovertible proof. MAYBE IT IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!