Other Resources The Political Joe » Climate Change Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 3
 
 
2017-02-12 12:27 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Climate Change

Originally posted by tuwood
Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by tuwood

Thoughts on this?

Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges

I know the "data" has been continually modified by NOAA to be colder and colder in the past to make current temps warmer and warmer.  This seems to give a little more insight into the corruption.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

Literally the second google search result. Gives a little insight into the corruption of the deniers.  But I'm sure since you're so dedicated to understanding what's actually happening, you already investigated both sides of this and knew the Daily Mail / Fox News article is nothing more than a click-bait headline followed by a BS accustation.

What am I denying?

It seems that you are doing some denying when anyone questions the science. Isn't the whole point of science to challenge and defend versus believe everything that comes out of a group that silences all opposing viewpoints?

Sorry, I didn't realize your link to an ad hominem attack on people's integrity based on easily disproven allegations was a careless mistake on your part.  I'll go back and check out all your posts that link to studies gathering data and testing alternative hypotheses to reach conclusions - you know, science.



2017-02-12 12:45 PM
in reply to: drewb8

User image

Pro
9377
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Climate Change
Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by tuwood
Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by tuwood

Thoughts on this?

Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges

I know the "data" has been continually modified by NOAA to be colder and colder in the past to make current temps warmer and warmer.  This seems to give a little more insight into the corruption.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

Literally the second google search result. Gives a little insight into the corruption of the deniers.  But I'm sure since you're so dedicated to understanding what's actually happening, you already investigated both sides of this and knew the Daily Mail / Fox News article is nothing more than a click-bait headline followed by a BS accustation.

What am I denying?

It seems that you are doing some denying when anyone questions the science. Isn't the whole point of science to challenge and defend versus believe everything that comes out of a group that silences all opposing viewpoints?

Sorry, I didn't realize your link to an ad hominem attack on people's integrity based on easily disproven allegations was a careless mistake on your part.  I'll go back and check out all your posts that link to studies gathering data and testing alternative hypotheses to reach conclusions - you know, science.

I like you Drew, but you seem to be incapable of anything other than complete trust in an institution that had repeatedly been caught lying and fabricating data. You mentioned the temperature data is the data earlier, but even that isn't true. It's been repeatedly adjusted the past several years, so the data isn't the data.
2017-02-12 1:01 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
15134
50005000500010025
Subject: RE: Climate Change

Originally posted by tuwood
Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by tuwood
Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by tuwood

Thoughts on this?

Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges

I know the "data" has been continually modified by NOAA to be colder and colder in the past to make current temps warmer and warmer.  This seems to give a little more insight into the corruption.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

Literally the second google search result. Gives a little insight into the corruption of the deniers.  But I'm sure since you're so dedicated to understanding what's actually happening, you already investigated both sides of this and knew the Daily Mail / Fox News article is nothing more than a click-bait headline followed by a BS accustation.

What am I denying?

It seems that you are doing some denying when anyone questions the science. Isn't the whole point of science to challenge and defend versus believe everything that comes out of a group that silences all opposing viewpoints?

Sorry, I didn't realize your link to an ad hominem attack on people's integrity based on easily disproven allegations was a careless mistake on your part.  I'll go back and check out all your posts that link to studies gathering data and testing alternative hypotheses to reach conclusions - you know, science.

I like you Drew, but you seem to be incapable of anything other than complete trust in an institution that had repeatedly been caught lying and fabricating data. You mentioned the temperature data is the data earlier, but even that isn't true. It's been repeatedly adjusted the past several years, so the data isn't the data.

That may or may not be true......but one thing is for certain....the money IS the money.   

 

2017-02-12 1:10 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
9377
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Climate Change
Here's a serious question. If the science and scientists are uncorruptable even though they are almost exclusively funded by the government, then why are people worried that trump is in charge? I've been told for years that the science can't be influenced by politics, so why is it different now?
2017-02-12 4:02 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
6820
50001000500100100100
Tejas
Subject: RE: Climate Change
Originally posted by tuwood

Here's a serious question. If the science and scientists are uncorruptable even though they are almost exclusively funded by the government, then why are people worried that trump is in charge? I've been told for years that the science can't be influenced by politics, so why is it different now?


Because PEBH makes it so.
2017-02-12 5:47 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Climate Change

Originally posted by tuwood

I like you Drew, but you seem to be incapable of anything other than complete trust in an institution that had repeatedly been caught lying and fabricating data. You mentioned the temperature data is the data earlier, but even that isn't true. It's been repeatedly adjusted the past several years, so the data isn't the data.

You call me naïve, but did you bother to check and see whether that article you posted was true or not or did you just take Fox News's word for it?  If you had bothered, it would have taken a 0.0002 seconds search on Google to find that the so-called corruption claims against the NOAA scientist are BS.  You claim the "institution" (which one exactly? science in general?) has " repeatedly been caught lying and fabricating data" yet all you ever cite are partisan hit pieces that are easily shown to be false.  If don't like the message make up stuff to slime the messenger I guess.  You claim to be fascinated in the science and interested in understanding what's going on, yet apparently you never were curious enough to find out why temperature data might need to be adjusted (in the NOAA study for example, they were using sea surface temperatures measured from buoys and from ship's engine intakes.  The measurements taken from the engine intakes are biased higher because engines are hot, so those temps are adjusted lower to account for this unnatural influence).  If I'm being naïve for believing thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries, governments, universities, public and private research organizations, etc,, transparently posting their data and methods in order to independently corroborate multiple lines of evidence, I'm ok with that.



Edited by drewb8 2017-02-12 5:56 PM


2017-02-12 8:49 PM
in reply to: drewb8

User image

Pro
9377
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Climate Change

Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by tuwood

I like you Drew, but you seem to be incapable of anything other than complete trust in an institution that had repeatedly been caught lying and fabricating data. You mentioned the temperature data is the data earlier, but even that isn't true. It's been repeatedly adjusted the past several years, so the data isn't the data.

You call me naïve, but did you bother to check and see whether that article you posted was true or not or did you just take Fox News's word for it?  If you had bothered, it would have taken a 0.0002 seconds search on Google to find that the so-called corruption claims against the NOAA scientist are BS.  You claim the "institution" (which one exactly? science in general?) has " repeatedly been caught lying and fabricating data" yet all you ever cite are partisan hit pieces that are easily shown to be false.  If don't like the message make up stuff to slime the messenger I guess.  You claim to be fascinated in the science and interested in understanding what's going on, yet apparently you never were curious enough to find out why temperature data might need to be adjusted (in the NOAA study for example, they were using sea surface temperatures measured from buoys and from ship's engine intakes.  The measurements taken from the engine intakes are biased higher because engines are hot, so those temps are adjusted lower to account for this unnatural influence).  If I'm being naïve for believing thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries, governments, universities, public and private research organizations, etc,, transparently posting their data and methods in order to independently corroborate multiple lines of evidence, I'm ok with that.

Your example sounds great about modifying current data that's being received but what's the justification for modifying data that's almost 100 years old?  Also, what's the justification for always making it colder in the past, yet all the current data modifications ironically seem to make the current day temperatures "warmer".

Yes, big science comes up with lots of great reasons and big words for "adjusting" the data, but it still doesn't change the fact that they're adjusting the data.
The temperature data is not the temperature data if it continues to be adjusted in the future.  
Here's a direct quote form the NOAA: "Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections."
Translated, yes we change the data to "correct it".  Why not just leave the data raw?

There is no form of science I'm aware of outside of Climate Science where any opposing theory is shouted down as moronic, denier, blah blah.  That alone tells us that it's not science, it's dogma.  Heck, I'm not even this adamant about Christianity.  

 

2017-02-12 10:08 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15134
50005000500010025
Subject: RE: Climate Change

Oroville, Ca. residents being evacuated as Lake Oroville tops it's damaged spillway due to recent rainfall.  Man, climate change caused the drought that dropped the lake to nearly 40% and then climate change caused it to overflow.....I need a scorecard. 

Next on deck.......hell freezes over. 

 



Edited by Left Brain 2017-02-12 10:22 PM
2017-02-12 11:45 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Master
5557
50005002525
Subject: RE: Climate Change

I guess I'm fascinated and curious why skeptics are so determined to cherry pick data to reinforce their own view.

Sure I can see why the CEO of Exxon might want to push climate change denial.  It affects his bottom line, at least in the short term.  But @tuwood - and I say this with no disrespect - I can't see a reason why it would have any direct effect on you.  I mean yeah you're a business owner but correct me if I'm wrong - I don't think that's an oil company right?

So if that's the case, why do you seem so determined that climate change science is a farce?  I'm asking that honestly not sarcastically.

Put it another way: imagine there was just ONE measure we could take that gave an absolute 100% answer about humans' effect on climate change.  And that measurement said: yes, we are causing it.

*Right now* I'm guessing that would not affect you in any way.  Extend that: let's say the world wants to make policy changes to do something about it.  Would that affect you?  How much?  Take into account that some republicans have a slightly different plan from what the democrats were pushing.



Edited by spudone 2017-02-12 11:47 PM
2017-02-13 1:57 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Climate Change

Originally posted by tuwood

Your example sounds great about modifying current data that's being received but what's the justification for modifying data that's almost 100 years old?  Also, what's the justification for always making it colder in the past, yet all the current data modifications ironically seem to make the current day temperatures "warmer".

Yes, big science comes up with lots of great reasons and big words for "adjusting" the data, but it still doesn't change the fact that they're adjusting the data.
The temperature data is not the temperature data if it continues to be adjusted in the future.  
Here's a direct quote form the NOAA: "Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections."
Translated, yes we change the data to "correct it".  Why not just leave the data raw?

There is no form of science I'm aware of outside of Climate Science where any opposing theory is shouted down as moronic, denier, blah blah.  That alone tells us that it's not science, it's dogma.  Heck, I'm not even this adamant about Christianity.  

I get why it seems like you would think that the raw, uncorrected data is always the best.  But all data everywhere are biased in one way or another, and if you don't correct for it, it might not answer the question you're asking it.  Your GPS unit corrects for biases all the time - if it didn't and it just used the raw data you'd pretty quickly end up way off of your actual position.  To take the original example, it was found that sea water temperatures taken inside engine inlets are biased warm - they're higher than the actual sea water temperature before it comes into the inlet.  If you're trying to use those data to find out if there have been changes in ocean water temperatures, but don't correct for the readings being warmer, the story those data are telling you is about how engine intakes influence water temperatures, not how ocean temperatures have been changing.  

The same types of things happen with 100 year old temperature records - stations change locations, type of thermometers, time of day they make observations, change from rural to urban, etc. I'm sure since you're so interested in understanding this properly that you've already looked into reasons data might need to be corrected, but in case you need more background check here.  Whether or not people call each other names is a bizarre way to judge whether something is "science" or not (as opposed to, I don't know, whether or not it follows the scientific method) but that might just be me blindly following big science.

2017-02-13 8:08 AM
in reply to: drewb8

User image

Pro
6820
50001000500100100100
Tejas
Subject: RE: Climate Change
Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by mdg2003 Funny thing about climate change science is the lack of reporting in some areas. I watched a show last night about "the blob." Seems for several years 2013-16 there was an area of warm water off the west coast that rose to 6degrees F above normal temps. This is the first time I heard of this event. This blob was not a small localized event, rather a huge area that went from N Kali up into the Aleutians. 6 degrees is huge and something I think we should have been hearing about, except they were able to determine pretty quickly why it occurred; a static high pressure ridge. My question is; Was this phenomena included in overall global ocean temp data when determining the rise of global water temps? An area as large as the blob combined with the high temp of the water would undoubtedly raise the overall average ocean water temps for that time period. Or was it included in the figures because the scientists determined that global climate change has affected the weather to the degree that it can justify including any data, to prove the hypothesis? Do you think they omitted this data?

So take this from someone who doesn't have any special expertise on compiling temperature data sets, but my hunch would be that, yes, those temps would be included in the data for the year.  The temp record is the temp record, it's not the place where the contribution of GHG's to temperature increases are teased out.  Heat wave data on land isn't excluded so I don't see why it would in the ocean either.  But if you're really interested in it, what I would suggest is finding a scientist who worked on the blob or does ocean temps and email them the question.  Most scientists I know are passionate about their work and love to talk about their research and would be psyched that someone from the general public is interested in what they're doing.




I think what makes me skeptical is the fact that we hear every single climate anomaly, be it high or be it low, is attributed to global 'insert buzzword here'. When the general populace saw record low temps, we had to rename the 'science' from global warming to climate change. Anything that doesn't fit into either of those molds has been called climate disruption. Are we getting warmer or are temps cycling back to cooler?

Politically, I see a lot of finger pointing at republicans and Exxon. This is a also a big red BS flag for those of us that are capable of thinking on our own. When the finger of blame is aimed at a political party or particular lobby group, I know it is something that is being politicized by the DNC. This is probably the number one reason I am skeptical of all the claims supporting the 'science.' The DNC will flat out lie and make any claim or accusation to further the party agenda. Before anyone flames me on that statement, I'm fully aware and do believe the republicans are too cozy with big oil. But, I don't see disproving global warming outlined anywhere as a major cornerstone of the party platform. I believe I can step out on a limb and state that the new admin is probably going to prove to be pro GW. Ivanka, whom we have all heard has daddy's ear, is pro GW. Let's see how that plays out.

In the mean time… have the Maldives gone under yet? As predicted?


2017-02-13 8:41 AM
in reply to: mdg2003

User image

Extreme Veteran
3023
20001000
Maryland
Subject: RE: Climate Change

Originally posted by mdg2003
Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by mdg2003 Funny thing about climate change science is the lack of reporting in some areas. I watched a show last night about "the blob." Seems for several years 2013-16 there was an area of warm water off the west coast that rose to 6degrees F above normal temps. This is the first time I heard of this event. This blob was not a small localized event, rather a huge area that went from N Kali up into the Aleutians. 6 degrees is huge and something I think we should have been hearing about, except they were able to determine pretty quickly why it occurred; a static high pressure ridge. My question is; Was this phenomena included in overall global ocean temp data when determining the rise of global water temps? An area as large as the blob combined with the high temp of the water would undoubtedly raise the overall average ocean water temps for that time period. Or was it included in the figures because the scientists determined that global climate change has affected the weather to the degree that it can justify including any data, to prove the hypothesis? Do you think they omitted this data?

So take this from someone who doesn't have any special expertise on compiling temperature data sets, but my hunch would be that, yes, those temps would be included in the data for the year.  The temp record is the temp record, it's not the place where the contribution of GHG's to temperature increases are teased out.  Heat wave data on land isn't excluded so I don't see why it would in the ocean either.  But if you're really interested in it, what I would suggest is finding a scientist who worked on the blob or does ocean temps and email them the question.  Most scientists I know are passionate about their work and love to talk about their research and would be psyched that someone from the general public is interested in what they're doing.

I think what makes me skeptical is the fact that we hear every single climate anomaly, be it high or be it low, is attributed to global 'insert buzzword here'. When the general populace saw record low temps, we had to rename the 'science' from global warming to climate change. Anything that doesn't fit into either of those molds has been called climate disruption. Are we getting warmer or are temps cycling back to cooler? Politically, I see a lot of finger pointing at republicans and Exxon. This is a also a big red BS flag for those of us that are capable of thinking on our own. When the finger of blame is aimed at a political party or particular lobby group, I know it is something that is being politicized by the DNC. This is probably the number one reason I am skeptical of all the claims supporting the 'science.' The DNC will flat out lie and make any claim or accusation to further the party agenda. Before anyone flames me on that statement, I'm fully aware and do believe the republicans are too cozy with big oil. But, I don't see disproving global warming outlined anywhere as a major cornerstone of the party platform. I believe I can step out on a limb and state that the new admin is probably going to prove to be pro GW. Ivanka, whom we have all heard has daddy's ear, is pro GW. Let's see how that plays out. In the mean time… have the Maldives gone under yet? As predicted?

you realize a republican spin guy named it global warming to make it sound less scary right? That wasn't the scientists.  The scientists call it global climate change because thats a more accurate description.

2017-02-13 8:59 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
6820
50001000500100100100
Tejas
Subject: RE: Climate Change
Dave, did I say it was the scientists that renamed the 'science' to fit the narrative? Republican spin guy? Please link me a source and reference defining when he made the name change and when the rest of the world began calling it climate change as a result of said spin. Even more ridiculous is that the renaming of it dilutes the GW argument and makes it look weak, as I previously stated. Why on earth would the climate change crowd just adopt a phrase that weakens their argument? You also gonna deny obama calling it climate disruption?
2017-02-13 8:59 AM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Pro
9377
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Climate Change

Originally posted by spudone

I guess I'm fascinated and curious why skeptics are so determined to cherry pick data to reinforce their own view.

Sure I can see why the CEO of Exxon might want to push climate change denial.  It affects his bottom line, at least in the short term.  But @tuwood - and I say this with no disrespect - I can't see a reason why it would have any direct effect on you.  I mean yeah you're a business owner but correct me if I'm wrong - I don't think that's an oil company right?

So if that's the case, why do you seem so determined that climate change science is a farce?  I'm asking that honestly not sarcastically.

Put it another way: imagine there was just ONE measure we could take that gave an absolute 100% answer about humans' effect on climate change.  And that measurement said: yes, we are causing it.

*Right now* I'm guessing that would not affect you in any way.  Extend that: let's say the world wants to make policy changes to do something about it.  Would that affect you?  How much?  Take into account that some republicans have a slightly different plan from what the democrats were pushing.

Valid questions and I certainly don't take it disrespectfully. 

My interest in the topic of Global Warming is rooted in my interest in Weather in general.  As a young kid I was always fascinated by storms and large weather events and it naturally translated into Climate Science as I got older.  I'm certainly not a scientist, but I do follow the topic (as well as other weather phenomena) quite closely.  I'm also a Pilot and that requires a lot of study of the weather.  Obviously weather and climate are two completely different things, but they are interrelated in many ways.

Where my initial skepticism, if you will, came in was when people and politicians took legitimate scientific concerns about Global Warming and started to fear monger with it.  We all could name off dozens of ridiculous proclamations from the last few decades of total devastation to the planet if we don't change our ways.
To even get further outside of climate science, I have been involved in writing, lobbying, and passing legislation for things (not related to climate) and really saw just how corrupt our government is.  It's often called taking the red pill (matrix reference) and being woke to our government when you get to peek under the covers.  
To over simplify what I've learned.  The government uses fear to convince people it's OK to steal their money.  If you don't let us raise your house taxes then we'll have to close down this school and lay off all these teachers... You don't want us to do that do you?

Anyways, transpose my knowledge of how our government works and then overlay the fear being touted by the multi-billion $ (probably trillion) Climate industry there's a perfect consistency which makes me want to dive deeper.  
If you go back in time with Mann's infamous and wildly debunked hockey stick in the 90's we didn't have much time left.  All of the models and predictions were that the earth was going to warm at an out of control pace and cause massive destruction everywhere.  It was certainly a valid hypothesis and scientists created many models and predictions based on their models but they all failed miserably when applied to real world data.  Many scientists have come up with multitudes of excuses and ways to justify why the models were wrong and to even say they weren't really wrong there are just other phenomenon (that we didn't know about at the time) that "hid" the increase but the increase is still really there. 

Every year that goes by the Climate industry is getting a little more desperate to prove they were right.  Lets just say for a minute that the contribution of man is completely insignificant to Global Warming and the alarm is dropped.  There are hundreds and hundreds of industries who will crumble.  The stakes are very high and they're very real to them no matter if it's true or not.  I know everyone likes to make fun of the oil industry who has a vested interest in making carbon great again, but the Climate industry has every bit as much incentive to push for harsher and harsher Carbon restrictions. 

All that being said, I 100% agree that the earth is getting warmer and has been for millions of years.  I also 100% agree that man contributes to the warming.  What I don't know, and also believe science doesn't know is what level of the warming is a result of man's contribution, and is it even significant.
Remember, the "global temperature" increased almost exactly as much in the early 1900's as it did in the late 1900's and has obviously increased a lot more prior to that (think ice age).

So, to answer your question it's not so much that I cherry pick the data, it's that I take a much less narrow view of the issue.  I also don't discount skeptical viewpoints as the "scientific community" often does on this topic.  Trust me, there are some whack jobs on the "skeptic side" and I treat them as such.  However, there are also some very solid scientists on the other side of this issue that people simply ignore because it doesn't fit their belief (which is not science). 

2017-02-13 9:01 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
15134
50005000500010025
Subject: RE: Climate Change

I couldn't believe all of the robins in my yard yesterday......definitely global warming....er....global climate change causing this early migration.  Hell, I've still got hummingbirds at my feeders.  What is going on here??

2017-02-13 9:10 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9377
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Climate Change

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by mdg2003
Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by mdg2003 Funny thing about climate change science is the lack of reporting in some areas. I watched a show last night about "the blob." Seems for several years 2013-16 there was an area of warm water off the west coast that rose to 6degrees F above normal temps. This is the first time I heard of this event. This blob was not a small localized event, rather a huge area that went from N Kali up into the Aleutians. 6 degrees is huge and something I think we should have been hearing about, except they were able to determine pretty quickly why it occurred; a static high pressure ridge. My question is; Was this phenomena included in overall global ocean temp data when determining the rise of global water temps? An area as large as the blob combined with the high temp of the water would undoubtedly raise the overall average ocean water temps for that time period. Or was it included in the figures because the scientists determined that global climate change has affected the weather to the degree that it can justify including any data, to prove the hypothesis? Do you think they omitted this data?

So take this from someone who doesn't have any special expertise on compiling temperature data sets, but my hunch would be that, yes, those temps would be included in the data for the year.  The temp record is the temp record, it's not the place where the contribution of GHG's to temperature increases are teased out.  Heat wave data on land isn't excluded so I don't see why it would in the ocean either.  But if you're really interested in it, what I would suggest is finding a scientist who worked on the blob or does ocean temps and email them the question.  Most scientists I know are passionate about their work and love to talk about their research and would be psyched that someone from the general public is interested in what they're doing.

I think what makes me skeptical is the fact that we hear every single climate anomaly, be it high or be it low, is attributed to global 'insert buzzword here'. When the general populace saw record low temps, we had to rename the 'science' from global warming to climate change. Anything that doesn't fit into either of those molds has been called climate disruption. Are we getting warmer or are temps cycling back to cooler? Politically, I see a lot of finger pointing at republicans and Exxon. This is a also a big red BS flag for those of us that are capable of thinking on our own. When the finger of blame is aimed at a political party or particular lobby group, I know it is something that is being politicized by the DNC. This is probably the number one reason I am skeptical of all the claims supporting the 'science.' The DNC will flat out lie and make any claim or accusation to further the party agenda. Before anyone flames me on that statement, I'm fully aware and do believe the republicans are too cozy with big oil. But, I don't see disproving global warming outlined anywhere as a major cornerstone of the party platform. I believe I can step out on a limb and state that the new admin is probably going to prove to be pro GW. Ivanka, whom we have all heard has daddy's ear, is pro GW. Let's see how that plays out. In the mean time… have the Maldives gone under yet? As predicted?

you realize a republican spin guy named it global warming to make it sound less scary right? That wasn't the scientists.  The scientists call it global climate change because thats a more accurate description.

My understanding is that scientist Wally Broecker coined the term in his "Climate Change: Are we on the Brink of a Pronounced Global warming" paper in 1975.



2017-02-13 9:17 AM
in reply to: drewb8

User image

Pro
9377
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Climate Change

Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by tuwood

Your example sounds great about modifying current data that's being received but what's the justification for modifying data that's almost 100 years old?  Also, what's the justification for always making it colder in the past, yet all the current data modifications ironically seem to make the current day temperatures "warmer".

Yes, big science comes up with lots of great reasons and big words for "adjusting" the data, but it still doesn't change the fact that they're adjusting the data.
The temperature data is not the temperature data if it continues to be adjusted in the future.  
Here's a direct quote form the NOAA: "Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections."
Translated, yes we change the data to "correct it".  Why not just leave the data raw?

There is no form of science I'm aware of outside of Climate Science where any opposing theory is shouted down as moronic, denier, blah blah.  That alone tells us that it's not science, it's dogma.  Heck, I'm not even this adamant about Christianity.  

I get why it seems like you would think that the raw, uncorrected data is always the best.  But all data everywhere are biased in one way or another, and if you don't correct for it, it might not answer the question you're asking it.  Your GPS unit corrects for biases all the time - if it didn't and it just used the raw data you'd pretty quickly end up way off of your actual position.  To take the original example, it was found that sea water temperatures taken inside engine inlets are biased warm - they're higher than the actual sea water temperature before it comes into the inlet.  If you're trying to use those data to find out if there have been changes in ocean water temperatures, but don't correct for the readings being warmer, the story those data are telling you is about how engine intakes influence water temperatures, not how ocean temperatures have been changing.  

The same types of things happen with 100 year old temperature records - stations change locations, type of thermometers, time of day they make observations, change from rural to urban, etc. I'm sure since you're so interested in understanding this properly that you've already looked into reasons data might need to be corrected, but in case you need more background check here.  Whether or not people call each other names is a bizarre way to judge whether something is "science" or not (as opposed to, I don't know, whether or not it follows the scientific method) but that might just be me blindly following big science.

Yeah, obviously sometimes legitimate corrections are necessary but the methods and reasoning for the corrections need to be fully transparent and withstand scrutiny.

For example, you are absolutely correct about the ship inlet temperatures being too hot.  However, the whole issue with the "whistle blower" who came out at the NOAA was that in the NOAA version 4 dataset of sea temperatures they didn't adjust the ship temperatures they adjusted the reliable buoy readings and adjusted them upwards and justified it by using warmer readings from the seawater intakes on ships.
This wasn't some whack job denier or fox news hit piece, it was from Dr John Bates who was one of the two NOAA principal scientists working on climate issues who made the accusation (or blew the whistle). 

I don't have time to peruse your links at work today, but I will read through them later. 

2017-02-13 2:00 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Master
5557
50005002525
Subject: RE: Climate Change

So to extend that discussion, if man is causing some amount of warming, when does it become worth it to change the status quo?

Obviously the holy grail of power generation is nuclear fusion.  But we're always 50 years away from that

2017-02-13 3:37 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Pro
9377
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Climate Change

Originally posted by spudone

So to extend that discussion, if man is causing some amount of warming, when does it become worth it to change the status quo?

Obviously the holy grail of power generation is nuclear fusion.  But we're always 50 years away from that

That's a great question and I don't know the answer.  Personally I believe that you and I probably agree on a lot things when it comes to the things we should be doing regardless of what the science is saying.  I am a huge fan of alternative energy and sustainability.  I'm also a huge fan of keeping the environment clean and most certainly still want clean air regulations. 

Where my panties get in a bunch is the alarmism, taxation, and wasteful special interest spending when it comes to Big Climate.  I also feel the same way about taxation and special interest spending when it comes to Big Oil.

2017-02-14 1:35 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Climate Change

Originally posted by tuwood

Yeah, obviously sometimes legitimate corrections are necessary but the methods and reasoning for the corrections need to be fully transparent and withstand scrutiny.

For example, you are absolutely correct about the ship inlet temperatures being too hot.  However, the whole issue with the "whistle blower" who came out at the NOAA was that in the NOAA version 4 dataset of sea temperatures they didn't adjust the ship temperatures they adjusted the reliable buoy readings and adjusted them upwards and justified it by using warmer readings from the seawater intakes on ships.
This wasn't some whack job denier or fox news hit piece, it was from Dr John Bates who was one of the two NOAA principal scientists working on climate issues who made the accusation (or blew the whistle). 

I don't have time to peruse your links at work today, but I will read through them later. 

And here we finally have something about the original study we can talk about, but it's a far cry from CORRUPTION!! MANIPULATION!! WORLD LEADERS DUPED INTO SPENDING BILLIONS!! hit piece you linked to.  No argument on the credentials of Bates, but if you'd read the article I posted you'd know that his "whistle blowing" was mainly a dispute about how data is archived.  His other claims are easily refuted and seem more based on a chip on his shoulder because Karl had demoted him a few years back. Your question about why the buoy temperatures are adjusted rather than the intake data is an interesting one though, and I'd be interested to know why the researchers made that choice too.  But ultimately whether you bring one dataset up or the other down doesn't matter if you're looking at the trend as they are in this paper.  But if you're actually that interested / concerned, look up one of the authors and ask them.  Karl might be busy these days but you might have luck with one of the others.

Honestly, I find it exhausting with you sometimes because we can often get to an interesting discussion on the science - you're obviously interested in it and have a good understanding, and ask good questions, but you lose all credibility when you make claim after claim and post link after link to easily disproven, intentionally misleading BS (Mann's hocky stick was NOT debunked, yes there was warming in the early 1900's, but we know why, and why it's different from the warming we're seeing now, no, models have NOT failed miserably, though skeptics predictions haven't fared well, and on and on and on and on..) and it takes me being a d*ck to you, which I hate, because we usually get to a good discussion about the science way down the line, even if you only seem inetrested in the science that tries to poke holes in climate research.  Which is fine, there's a place for that, and that's what science is all about, but you never seem interested in looking into whether those critiques actually have any merit, so I'm left wondering why should I bother, especially when I still have two more seasons of Homeland to get through to get caught up, if all you're interested in is articles with sensational click bait headlines.  At least that's the impression it leaves with me when you post junk like that.  Someone sarcastically asked about the Maldives, but we are seeing the effects of sea level rise today, it's already costing tax payers money, and it's only going to get worse.  But sure let's keep wasting time with misleading, uninformed gotcha articles



Edited by drewb8 2017-02-14 1:44 AM
2017-02-17 8:01 PM
in reply to: drewb8

User image

Pro
15134
50005000500010025
Subject: RE: Climate Change

Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by tuwood

Yeah, obviously sometimes legitimate corrections are necessary but the methods and reasoning for the corrections need to be fully transparent and withstand scrutiny.

For example, you are absolutely correct about the ship inlet temperatures being too hot.  However, the whole issue with the "whistle blower" who came out at the NOAA was that in the NOAA version 4 dataset of sea temperatures they didn't adjust the ship temperatures they adjusted the reliable buoy readings and adjusted them upwards and justified it by using warmer readings from the seawater intakes on ships.
This wasn't some whack job denier or fox news hit piece, it was from Dr John Bates who was one of the two NOAA principal scientists working on climate issues who made the accusation (or blew the whistle). 

I don't have time to peruse your links at work today, but I will read through them later. 

And here we finally have something about the original study we can talk about, but it's a far cry from CORRUPTION!! MANIPULATION!! WORLD LEADERS DUPED INTO SPENDING BILLIONS!! hit piece you linked to.  No argument on the credentials of Bates, but if you'd read the article I posted you'd know that his "whistle blowing" was mainly a dispute about how data is archived.  His other claims are easily refuted and seem more based on a chip on his shoulder because Karl had demoted him a few years back. Your question about why the buoy temperatures are adjusted rather than the intake data is an interesting one though, and I'd be interested to know why the researchers made that choice too.  But ultimately whether you bring one dataset up or the other down doesn't matter if you're looking at the trend as they are in this paper.  But if you're actually that interested / concerned, look up one of the authors and ask them.  Karl might be busy these days but you might have luck with one of the others.

Honestly, I find it exhausting with you sometimes because we can often get to an interesting discussion on the science - you're obviously interested in it and have a good understanding, and ask good questions, but you lose all credibility when you make claim after claim and post link after link to easily disproven, intentionally misleading BS (Mann's hocky stick was NOT debunked, yes there was warming in the early 1900's, but we know why, and why it's different from the warming we're seeing now, no, models have NOT failed miserably, though skeptics predictions haven't fared well, and on and on and on and on..) and it takes me being a d*ck to you, which I hate, because we usually get to a good discussion about the science way down the line, even if you only seem inetrested in the science that tries to poke holes in climate research.  Which is fine, there's a place for that, and that's what science is all about, but you never seem interested in looking into whether those critiques actually have any merit, so I'm left wondering why should I bother, especially when I still have two more seasons of Homeland to get through to get caught up, if all you're interested in is articles with sensational click bait headlines.  At least that's the impression it leaves with me when you post junk like that.  Someone sarcastically asked about the Maldives, but we are seeing the effects of sea level rise today, it's already costing tax payers money, and it's only going to get worse.  But sure let's keep wasting time with misleading, uninformed gotcha articles



New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Climate Change Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 3
 
 
RELATED POSTS

Judge rules infants name to be changed! Pages: 1 2

Started by jford2309
Views: 2655 Posts: 32

2013-08-29 11:05 AM Pector55

A change of pace from SSM

Started by JoshR
Views: 816 Posts: 6

2013-07-02 3:25 PM mehaner

Medical Groups Oppose Gun-Law Change To Share Mental Health Records

Started by DanielG
Views: 1616 Posts: 11

2013-06-19 2:04 PM powerman
RELATED ARTICLES
date : April 23, 2009
author : Team BT
comments : 0
Video of the six kick change swim drill.
 
date : January 20, 2009
author : AMSSM
comments : 0
Information for training as a pregnant triathlete including physiological changes, nutritional and environmental concerns plus certain risks to avoid.
date : November 5, 2008
author : FitWerx
comments : 0
What are the essential mechanical/maintenance skills that I as someone who rides a bike should learn how to do myself?
 
date : May 5, 2008
author : mrakes1
comments : 0
Did you flat training or racing on your tubular tire? This video will show you everything you need to do to change your tubular tire.
date : November 6, 2007
author : Ron
comments : 2
Don't know how to take that rear wheel off of your bike? Is the chain making things difficult? Learn how to remove your rear wheel if you have to change your bike tire or fix a flat.
 
date : April 17, 2005
author : Daniel Clout
comments : 5
I was humbled last year. My body shut down on me just before two World Championship events. I was originally in top form to medal in both, but my strength was sapped from me.
date : April 3, 2005
author : Team BT
comments : 1
The day that I decided to participate in a triathlon really changed my view of my own obstacles of matching the mind to the body and the spirit to contribute to society.
 
date : August 31, 2004
author : malvey
comments : 0
The journey begins in the brain. The brain, which energizes your attitude, is the most powerful factor in a lifestyle overhaul.