An Arctic 'Report Card' from NOAA

[SSDD]

Why would they need to manipulate data. Shouldn't government agencies be trusted?

They are trusted by the consensus of climate scientists. I'd say that out weighs the suspicions of raving loonies.

And most climate scientists work for the government...circular thinking much?

Ever notice how the only arguments you guys seem to be able to come up with are logical fallacy, vagaries, cherry picking, and insult?

 

[Crick]

Even notice that the only arguments you have ever had involve insane, paranoid conspiracy theories? You guys aren't in league with the flat-earthers, it's the Chem-Trail boys with whom you run.

The majority of climate scientists are university professors. And government researchers wouldn't be driven to seek research grants, would they.

 

[SSDD]

The majority of climate scientists are university professors. And government researchers wouldn't be driven to seek research grants, would they.

Are you going to deny that most climate scientists are funded by government? Going to deny that you are, in effect, working for whoever funds you?

 

[Crick]

My statement is correct. What you need to do is to provide real evidence of a massive and perfectly executed conspiracy to manufacture terrabytes of false but perfectly coherent data, real-time without a single participant across the entire globe opting to go public about it.

 

[SSDD]

You mean those heavily massaged, manipulated, and infilled data records? The steaming piles of dung that aren't worth the hard drive space it takes to store them? Those records? The ones that are good enough to fool you?

 

[Crick]

Since no actual climate scientists share your opinion of those data adjustments,including folks like J Curry and R Spencer, I will have to classify that as just another one of your many, many, many, unsubstantiated assertions. What I would really like to see is a confession from one of the thousands of climate science researchers who would have to be involved in such an endeavor.

 

[westwall]

Why would they need to manipulate data. Shouldn't government agencies be trusted?

They are trusted by the consensus of climate scientists. I'd say that out weighs the suspicions of raving loonies.

Color me unsurprised that a government organisation, that derives its funding by perpetuating the fraud, will cook the numbers to help the scientists who are pushing the fraud because they too derive their funding from the fraud.

Were you a thinking person you would understand how that makes the entire profession suspect.

But we all know you don't think.

1) Your position Mr Westwall would thus reject the findings of any scientific endeavor that discovered a threat or suggested further research was in our best interest.
2) The contention that more than 97% of the world's climate scientists - are willing to lie to the public to get funding is simply unsupportable. It's actually an insane claim.
3) Thus it appears that YOU are the one who fails to exhibit the characteristics of a thinking person.

Wrong again clown boy. I fully support GOOD scientific research. Climatology is now a joke. They have abandoned any pretense at following the scientific method which means they are now a pseudo science.

Everything is threat, idiot. The question is how big. To date there is not one iota of evidence from these morons that anything bad will happen. All they have are science fiction to back up their claims. Idiots, like you, swoon over fiction, just like the idiots who claim the Earth is only 6000 years old because their religious leaders tell them so.

You are no different clown boy.

 

[Crick]

So, where IS that good scientific research?

 

[SSDD]

Since no actual climate scientists share your opinion of those data adjustments,including folks like J Curry and R Spencer, I will have to classify that as just another one of your many, many, many, unsubstantiated assertions. What I would really like to see is a confession from one of the thousands of climate science researchers who would have to be involved in such an endeavor.

Ahhh.......the inevetable logical fallacy. Do just a wee bit of research...how often has the consensus been wrong? And in scientific disciplines far more strictly managed than climate science?

I have been waiting for several years for a rational scientifically valid reason for altering temperatures of 50, 75, 100 years ago, and even further back...no such reason has turned up...crn did suggest the reason was "better knowledge" whatever that means...he had no explanation.

 

[sparky]

What you need to do is to provide real evidence of a massive and perfectly executed conspiracy to manufacture terrabytes of false but perfectly coherent data, real-time without a single participant across the entire globe opting to go public about it.

&&&

~S~

 

[sparky]

and it gets better>>>>
Google, Facebook, and Microsoft sponsored a conference that promoted climate change denial


Google was a platinum sponsor, ponying up $25,000, and Facebook and Microsoft each contributed $10,000 as gold sponsors.


Rossiter also claimed that carbon dioxide emissions correlate with wealth and that the greenhouse gas “improves life expectancy” because poor countries that start burning fossil fuels have a more consistent power supply and can then clean up their water. “I’m happy when carbon dioxide is up, because it means poverty is down,” he declared. “I come not to bury your carbon but to praise it,” he concluded.