Another fun climate change thread

I know that this is your idea of rebutting what I've shown to be true. But it's just you complaining . . .

 

This is because without man the planet would be cooling. Like during the middle ages in Europe when it was documented cooler. Not close to the danger we see now with warming though.

The Earth does have climate cycles. Sadly people like you cling to this old knowladge for some social or politcal reason. People thought it was cooling since it actuly was. We then saw the effects of fossil fuels they adjusted.

 

Sadly, you, too, are willing to overlook emails that clearly show deception and fraud. I'm not clinging to denial like you are. Do you want me to go through the details with you like I did with others? Because I'm going to make you answer for not seeing clear examples of fraud and deception. And actually, you won't have a choice in the matter, because that's what's going to happen here.

 

The scientific consensus is overwhelming and there is no logical reason to lie.

Don't waste your time. I am with the scientific community. My own background in university science also tells me they are right.

 

First ever audit of global temperature data finds freezing tropical islands, boiling towns, boats on land

The fate of the planet is at stake, but the key temperature data set used by climate models contains more than 70 different sorts of problems. Trillions of dollars have been spent because of predictions based on this data – yet even the most baby-basic quality control checks have not been done.

Thanks to Dr John McLean, we see how The IPCC demands for cash rest on freak data, empty fields, Fahrenheit temps recorded as Celsius, mistakes in longitude and latitude, brutal adjustments and even spelling errors.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Main points:

• The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars.
• McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.
• Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Colombia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
• Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.
• Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.
• When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.

Gory details of the worst outliers

• 
  
  
  • For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively.
  • The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis, Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average was about 11.5°C).
• At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other years was 26.0°C.

Your thoughts . . .

 

So "warming" is disproved with cold temperatures?

See this is why I don't bother. A cool tropical island proves climate change. Typical right wing nonsense. "if it snows it's not getting hot"

You are not scientifically literate.

 

Think about it, all the pollution. It definitely can’t be good for the environment

 

Humankind is ruining the earth. Instead of taking care of it like we should. We take care of our homes. If these politicians were so great we wouldn’t have these problems

 

If every country spent as much as they do on the defense, on our environment, we would live in an awesome place

 

They do not for love of the free market and religious views in America.

1. they don't want tax which is likely with any sort of climate change laws
2. they are Christian and not do not accept man can change the Earth only god can

 

I see. So you have no problem with Fahrenheit temperatures being recorded as Celsius because you're scientifically literate . . .

 

I'm not sure what your point is. Like a C or F does not explain the data and you seem to think it does.

 

Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators:

"Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?... Will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential "hockey stick" graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," wrote Jones. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, according to you, these emails depict some honest guys just doing their best to be honest. Correct?

 

One or two mistakes from a few sources simply does not answer the climate question

It's a decades long research field from tends of thousands of people. It's not as easy as saying "some one wrote it down wrong" or "someone was paid to lie"

Science as a whole always questions. Someone would notice.

 

Are you really going to sit there and pretend that you don't know what the implications of mistaking Fahrenheit for Celsius is? That's hard to believe.

 

It would affect data but it's not as if EVERY single study on this did it.

 

What data did the IPCC base their gloom and doom scenarios on?

Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What do you think of that?

 

This Dr. John McLean?

Bankrolled by Exxon, ladies and gents

The Big Oil-backed climate denier who hoodwinked Fairfax

This article has a wealth of information as to exactly how unqualified Dr. John Mcclean actually is in regards to the science of climate, if anyone is interested.

I havent seen one credible source from you, Storch. I'm starting to wonder if you are also bank rolled by Exxon

 

I think you read a few buzzwords and seriously think you know what you are talking about. You bring politcal views into a area with no politics. With your buzzwords you think you disprove things.

You are not posting valid data yet all the text would imply you think you do

 

You dishonestly ignore what his audit of the global temperature data that is used by the alarmists found. You're good at character assassination, but that doesn't do anything to dispel the facts. Try again.