Climate alarmists caught faking sea level rise!!!

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have ample credentials to read most any Global Warming and judge the validity of handling simple ass time series data.

You clearly do not, or you would be in the scientific community, publishing your denier garbage. Give me a break.

Well you'd be wrong. I actually HAVE applied my work in fields very much related to Climate. I headed a group that produced 2nd gen multi-spectral image analysis for Earth Resource satellites. Both hardware and algorithm design and verification. When your specialty is image/signal processing, that art is applicable to virtually EVERY field of science. I've worked on everything from analyzing Dolphin speech for SeaWorld/Navy to cracking communication channels for the intelligence community. Have worked in over a DOZEN scientific disciplines. And not afraid to learn the lingo and the science for them. I've attended HUNDREDS of cardiac cath procedures to understand what the radiologist/cardiologist is looking for. Just finished a "bionic" arm/leg post surgical frame that automatically adjusts as the bones mend and grow.

I consider that -- FAR more qualified and sciency than say a frog biologist who gets to publish on GW effect on frogs and is considered "a climate scientist"..

That's a lot of pretty bloviating and all (would you like to hear my life story now? zzzzzzzzz), but it doesn't seem to actually be translating into science. I promise you that you would have NO problem getting yourself a little grant and pocket money to publish science that you think undermines the accepted theories. As it turns out, the energy industry has a lot of money. Yet, strangely, they seem more fond of disseminating confusing misinformation than of funding any science. Maybe they are just waiting for a guy like you?

 

[KissMy]

Could never work even 24 hours in my field!

You don't work son. You waste time all day blabbing useless trash on message boards.

 

[flacaltenn]

I have ample credentials to read most any Global Warming and judge the validity of handling simple ass time series data.

You clearly do not, or you would be in the scientific community, publishing your denier garbage. Give me a break.

Well you'd be wrong. I actually HAVE applied my work in fields very much related to Climate. I headed a group that produced 2nd gen multi-spectral image analysis for Earth Resource satellites. Both hardware and algorithm design and verification. When your specialty is image/signal processing, that art is applicable to virtually EVERY field of science. I've worked on everything from analyzing Dolphin speech for SeaWorld/Navy to cracking communication channels for the intelligence community. Have worked in over a DOZEN scientific disciplines. And not afraid to learn the lingo and the science for them. I've attended HUNDREDS of cardiac cath procedures to understand what the radiologist/cardiologist is looking for. Just finished a "bionic" arm/leg post surgical frame that automatically adjusts as the bones mend and grow.

I consider that -- FAR more qualified and sciency than say a frog biologist who gets to publish on GW effect on frogs and is considered "a climate scientist"..

That's a lot of pretty bloviating and all (would you like to hear my life story now? zzzzzzzzz), but it doesn't seem to actually be translating into science. I promise you that you would have NO problem getting yourself a little grant and pocket money to publish science that you think undermines the accepted theories. As it turns out, the energy industry has a lot of money. Yet, strangely, they seem more fond of disseminating confusing misinformation than of funding any science. Maybe they are just waiting for a guy like you?

Naww .. Big energy LOVES CC money. THey get more than anyone else. For alt fuels. For being large scale solar integrators. For having the govt beat up on coal so they get a MAJOR slice of the electrical gen market with Nat Gas.. They LOVE IT.. Except for the Saudis, who aren't privvy to all that pork..

That's actually ridiculous assertion if you ever realized how all this works...

 

[mamooth]

I might be able to do that IF all time and money in Climate Science had been focused on how the thermodynamics of the Earth REALLY WORKS..

So when called to actually do something, you can't give us jack. Given that the scientists have given us good science based on hard data and hard phsyics that makes accurate predictions, why should anyone care about your excuses and whining? Internet braggarts who can't deliver are a dime a dozen.

Lots of guesses ventured. Instead of REPLACING those guesses with actual system descriptions..

That's your Engineer's Arrogance Syndrome talking.

 

[skookerasbil]

I might be able to do that IF all time and money in Climate Science had been focused on how the thermodynamics of the Earth REALLY WORKS..

So when called to actually do something, you can't give us jack. Given that the scientists have given us good science based on hard data and hard phsyics that makes accurate predictions, why should anyone care about your excuses and whining? Internet braggarts who can't deliver are a dime a dozen.

Lots of guesses ventured. Instead of REPLACING those guesses with actual system descriptions..

That's your Engineer's Arrogance Syndrome talking.

meh

The "good science" and "hard data" isn't resonating with the public s0n.............yet a handful of hard core members of the religion refer to these people as the "cult". These Einstein's don't even know how to read a Bell Curve graph!!!


Abstract
Despite overwhelming scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic climate change, many in the non-expert public perceive climate change as debated and contentious. There is concern that two recent high-profile media events—the hacking of the University of East Anglia emails and the Himalayan glacier melt rate presented in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—may have altered public opinion of climate change.

Public interest in climate change over the past decade and the effects of the 'climategate' media event - IOPscience

 

[skookerasbil]

U.S. public is largely skeptical of climate scientists’ understanding of climate change



Americans appear to harbor significant reservations about climate scientists’ expertise and understanding of what is happening to the Earth’s climate. One-in-three adults (33%) say climate scientists understand “very well” whether climate change is occurring, another 39% say scientists understand this “fairly well” and some 27% say scientists don’t understand this “too well” or don’t understand it at all.

 

[skookerasbil]

I might be able to do that IF all time and money in Climate Science had been focused on how the thermodynamics of the Earth REALLY WORKS..

So when called to actually do something, you can't give us jack. Given that the scientists have given us good science based on hard data and hard phsyics that makes accurate predictions, why should anyone care about your excuses and whining? Internet braggarts who can't deliver are a dime a dozen.

Lots of guesses ventured. Instead of REPLACING those guesses with actual system descriptions..

That's your Engineer's Arrogance Syndrome talking.

meh

The "good science" and "hard data" isn't resonating with the public s0n.............


Abstract
Despite overwhelming scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic climate change, many in the non-expert public perceive climate change as debated and contentious. There is concern that two recent high-profile media events—the hacking of the University of East Anglia emails and the Himalayan glacier melt rate presented in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—may have altered public opinion of climate change.

1. Public views on climate change and climate scientists



Screwing with the data has its consequences!!


Certainly explains why in the real world, the science isn't mattering for dick!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Altered data, consensus, yeah, that's science.