Massive data manipulation by AGW industry!

[mamooth]

I have as much evidence as you do as to what the climate was 550 million years ago and what caused it. Namely, nothing.

Don't project. The fact that you're ignorant of the topic doesn't mean the rest of the world is ignorant.

The question has never been whether GHGs can affect the planet's climate, the question is are GHGs the number one thing we should be worried about. The planet, within the last 1000 years has undergone massive climatic changes independent of CO2 levels. The possibility that other factors are involved?

Those others factors are studied in great depth by the science. See Crick's post #132 as an example.

DENIER, DENIER, DENIER. No discussion allowed

We're discussing it. You're avoiding that discussion.

Half of doubling of CO2 has caused a 1.0c warming. Prove it. This is at a time time the planet is coming out of the LIA.

Temperatures in 1850 were higher than they were previous to the start of the LIA, meaning the planet had completely recovered from the LIA by 1850. Anything past that date can't be blamed on the LIA. Hence, the "The Earth is still recovering from the LIA" theory is demonstrably wrong.

Prove it. The planet should be warming coming out of a cooler period.

The natural cycle right would be for the Earth to be very slowly cooling. That's been the overall pattern for the past 8000 years, and it should have continued into the next ice age in 25,000 - 50,000 years. Instead, the trend suddenly flipped to fast warming.

And much, maybe the majority, of the warming happened before AGHGs.

Since nobody ever said CO2 was the only thing controlling climate, that's irrelevant.

Welcome to science, prove it. You can't, and you know you can't

We can certainly prove that a fast warmup after an ice age and then slow cooldown is the historical pattern. We can prove we were in the slow cooldown phase. Since the Earth's current behavior contradicts the "It's a natural cycle!" theory, we know that theory is wrong.

"Science accepts the best theory that explains...." You must be kidding. You obviously don't care for science. Science couldn't care less about theory, prove it or shut up.

I understand your motivation. If I couldn't provide any theory that explained the observed data, I'd reject the scientific method just as you did. Fortunately, the rational side can provide such a theory, so we don't need to reject the scientific method.

If you want to be taken seriously, do what the rational side did. Provide a theory that explains the observed data, and which makes predictions that get proven to be correct.

Now this is funny. Which issues do you focus on? Black lives?

I'm focusing on the science, not any politics. I do thank you for confirming my point, which was that this is entirely about politics to you, so you adjust your "science" to match your politics, regardless of what the data shows.

 

[mamooth]

You want to see the sort of data manipulation and outright fraud that goes on within climate science...here...have a look...and by the way....this is just for the month of february this year....this sort of data fakery has made the global temperature record effectively worthless for anything other than supporting an alarmist narrative.

Meanwhile, back in reality, here are the land stations used in the NOAAGlobalTemp data set. The coverage is excellent.

The GHCNM plot only shows stations that are more than 80 years old, so it shows very few stations, especially in Africa. The NOAAGlobalTemp data set uses all of the stations. The two plots also display different things -- a percentile plot of GHCNM, an anomaly plot for NOAAGlobalTemp.

So, SSDD just tried an apples-vs-oranges fraud, and it died with a whimper. So sad.

 

[SSDD]

You want to see the sort of data manipulation and outright fraud that goes on within climate science...here...have a look...and by the way....this is just for the month of february this year....this sort of data fakery has made the global temperature record effectively worthless for anything other than supporting an alarmist narrative.

Meanwhile, back in reality, here are the land stations used in the NOAAGlobalTemp data set. The coverage is excellent.

The GHCNM plot only shows stations that are more than 80 years old, so it shows very few stations, especially in Africa. The NOAAGlobalTemp data set uses all of the stations. The two plots also display different things -- a percentile plot of GHCNM, an anomaly plot for NOAAGlobalTemp.

So, SSDD just tried an apples-vs-oranges fraud, and it died with a whimper. So sad.

Poor hairball...just as easily fooled as the rest of your cult....you believe whatever pap you are told and then go forth and spew it wherever you can like a good little bot.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Empirical evidence that added CO2 causes increased global warming

And for someone using the term "retard". can I ask if you've gotten through that tough final in third grade yet?

Billy Bob. You said "Common ******... Post up empirical evidence of this "enhancement" I dare you! (we've been asking for years now)".

Anyone who's been here for years could tell you that the above data or any number of graphics with the same information have been posted numerous times on this forum. So have data like:

which show that CO2 absorbs some of the IR spectrum that the Earth radiates and, I believe, was posted on this forum by YOU within the last couple of weeks.

So, how did you come to conclude that no one had ever posted evidence of CO2 causing warming? Did you assume just about every scientist on the planet had accepted greenhouse warming and AGW without evidence that CO2 was, in fact, a greenhouse gas?

You post the same manipulated graphs and band-pass graphs thinking it proves your delusion. You are an Idiot...

Your first graph is but a X-Y axis illusion where two differing graphs are manipulated to make a false correlation. Where is your proof of causation? The graphing proves nothing. It is a sham and an outright lie and deception.

Your second graph is that of the BAND-PASS of energy in the atmosphere and makes no assessment of what it can contribute or affect.

All you have done is post up bull shit and expect real scientists to eat it up. But we do not. We expose it for the lie and deception it is..

All you ever do is post up loose correlations and abject failures of proof of causation. None of what you post is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Your a dupe and a fool...

 

[mamooth]

Poor hairball...just as easily fooled as the rest of your cult....you believe whatever pap you are told and then go forth and spew it wherever you can like a good little bot.

What part of the refutation of your fraud attempt did you have specific issue with?

If you can locate your balls, try addressing the specific points I made. Since I can back up everything I said, I look forward to it. Of course, you know I can back it up, which is why you're now going to weep out more insults as your way of running from the topic.

 

[jc456]

I have as much evidence as you do as to what the climate was 550 million years ago and what caused it. Namely, nothing.

Don't project. The fact that you're ignorant of the topic doesn't mean the rest of the world is ignorant.

The question has never been whether GHGs can affect the planet's climate, the question is are GHGs the number one thing we should be worried about. The planet, within the last 1000 years has undergone massive climatic changes independent of CO2 levels. The possibility that other factors are involved?

Those others factors are studied in great depth by the science. See Crick's post #132 as an example.

DENIER, DENIER, DENIER. No discussion allowed

We're discussing it. You're avoiding that discussion.

Half of doubling of CO2 has caused a 1.0c warming. Prove it. This is at a time time the planet is coming out of the LIA.

Temperatures in 1850 were higher than they were previous to the start of the LIA, meaning the planet had completely recovered from the LIA by 1850. Anything past that date can't be blamed on the LIA. Hence, the "The Earth is still recovering from the LIA" theory is demonstrably wrong.

Prove it. The planet should be warming coming out of a cooler period.

The natural cycle right would be for the Earth to be very slowly cooling. That's been the overall pattern for the past 8000 years, and it should have continued into the next ice age in 25,000 - 50,000 years. Instead, the trend suddenly flipped to fast warming.

And much, maybe the majority, of the warming happened before AGHGs.

Since nobody ever said CO2 was the only thing controlling climate, that's irrelevant.

Welcome to science, prove it. You can't, and you know you can't

We can certainly prove that a fast warmup after an ice age and then slow cooldown is the historical pattern. We can prove we were in the slow cooldown phase. Since the Earth's current behavior contradicts the "It's a natural cycle!" theory, we know that theory is wrong.

"Science accepts the best theory that explains...." You must be kidding. You obviously don't care for science. Science couldn't care less about theory, prove it or shut up.

I understand your motivation. If I couldn't provide any theory that explained the observed data, I'd reject the scientific method just as you did. Fortunately, the rational side can provide such a theory, so we don't need to reject the scientific method.

If you want to be taken seriously, do what the rational side did. Provide a theory that explains the observed data, and which makes predictions that get proven to be correct.

Now this is funny. Which issues do you focus on? Black lives?

I'm focusing on the science, not any politics. I do thank you for confirming my point, which was that this is entirely about politics to you, so you adjust your "science" to match your politics, regardless of what the data shows.

which link from post #132 is observed empirical data that proves your point? I'll wait.

 

[skookerasbil]

lol......a bit of a reality check s0ns..........

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/07/05/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-ii/

 

[skookerasbil]

Publication
5 Key Steps for a Proper Workplace Investigation
May 19, 2017
By Ryan Baxter, Lawyer at McInnes Cooper,
Ryan McCarville, Lawyer at McInnes Cooper
Investigations are a vital – but difficult – part of workplace management. The value of a proper investigation can’t be overstated: it plays a pivotal role in the imposition of discipline (and any subsequent challenge to such discipline) and provides an important safeguard to employees’ right to procedural fairness. An employer that conducts an improper (or no) investigation leaves itself exposed to potential liability and other negative consequences, including a successful claim for punitive damages, human rights complaint(s), civil legal action or grievance. An effective and fair workplace investigation results in a solid conclusion based on which the employer can take decisive and appropriate action – and preclude negative consequences down the road.
Here are five key steps to conducting a proper workplace investigation.
1. Procedural Fairness
An employer is bound by principles of procedural fairness in imposing discipline, and this generally entails an obligation on the employer to investigate the circumstances before disciplining an employee. Generally, an employer should carry out a workplace investigation whenever there is or may be some form of employee misconduct or inappropriate workplace behaviour – like bullying or harassment (sexual harassment or otherwise) or workplace drug use – including when there’s a complaint under the applicable workplace harassment policy or a law (such as applicable occupational health and safety, human rights and/or employment standards laws). The employer’s broad objectives in such an investigation are the opportunity to get the facts straight before confronting the employee(s), give the employee an opportunity to present their version of events and/or explain their conduct, and ultimately verify whether discipline is warranted and if so, the surrounding circumstances (including mitigating or aggravating factors) to assist it determine the appropriate discipline. Every effective workplace investigation, regardless of its nature, must embrace four overarching principles:
Neutrality. Investigators must not have a personal stake in the outcome of the investigation or pre-judge the issue.
Fairness. Employers have a duty to conduct workplace investigations in a fair and impartial manner. “Fairness” depends on the circumstances of each investigation, but at a minimum, all parties involved must have the opportunity to provide all relevant information and to have the investigator consider it.
Thoroughness. Uncover all information necessary to make the proper decision and to ensure that conclusions are supported.
Timeliness. Act promptly to avoid further acts of wrongdoing and impose discipline in a timely manner or risk a successful challenge in a court or arbitration.

5 Key Steps for a Proper Workplace Investigation | McInnes Cooper




See highlighted in red above........the East Anglia e-mail scandal/investigation was a fraud. There was no investigative neutrality whatsoever.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You want to see the sort of data manipulation and outright fraud that goes on within climate science...here...have a look...and by the way....this is just for the month of february this year....this sort of data fakery has made the global temperature record effectively worthless for anything other than supporting an alarmist narrative.

Pretty scary huh? It gives the impression that the earth will soon spontaneously combust...which is exactly the impression it is supposed to make whether it is true or not...

The map below shows the actual surface temperatures NOAA had to work with during february..

There is a great deal of infilling...and if you look at these charts often, you will invariably see that the hottest places on earth are those with the least instrumental coverage...that is...the record heat is not real...it is the product of data manipulation.

Look at South America for example...this gap in the instrumental coverage has been changed into one of the warmest places on earth...and contributes to the hysterical handwaving over record temperatures...the only record is the degree to which data is being faked to support an alarmist narrative...

Now take a look at northern China and Russia...and Australia....note how very cold temperatures have been warmed up and areas where data doesn't exist have been made warmer...

Look at the extent to which the midwest in the US and Canada has been warmed making the record cold in this region disappear completely.

Anyone who argues in defense of this sort of outright data manipulation and fraud is simply not to be believed...the evidence is clear, and there is so much of it that to deny gross manipulation of temperature data is simply a bald faced lie.

The left wing alarmists have been lying out of their asses this winter. the US-CRN shows a -3.1 deg C drop in NH temperatures. Only the highly massaged and manipulated Karl et al crap show no cooling. As I do this type of work for a living, I no longer tolerate the likes of people who do this deception. Thank you for posting up the truth.

 

[Crick]

I don't see the world's climate turning around here Billy Boy.

 

[mamooth]

which link from post #132 is observed empirical data that proves your point? I'll wait.

The topic being discussed was the lunatic claim that issues other than CO2 weren't explored.

The chart there was the IPCC summary of all of those issues being explored.

You're either a moron who didn't look at the post, or you're a lying troll. In either case, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

 

[jc456]

which link from post #132 is observed empirical data that proves your point? I'll wait.

The topic being discussed was the lunatic claim that issues other than CO2 weren't explored.

The chart there was the IPCC summary of all of those issues being explored.

You're either a moron who didn't look at the post, or you're a lying troll. In either case, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

so it's your position, good, so quote the piece that makes the point. It's what grownups do.

 

[mamooth]

The left wing alarmists have been lying out of their asses this winter. the US-CRN shows a -3.1 deg C drop in NH temperatures.

What else did Harvey tell you? You know, your pooka pal. We'd all like to hear about all of your conversations.

 

[jc456]

The left wing alarmists have been lying out of their asses this winter. the US-CRN shows a -3.1 deg C drop in NH temperatures.

What else did Harvey tell you? You know, your pooka pal. We'd all like to hear about all of your conversations.

It’s polka

 

[baileyn45]

Don't project. The fact that you're ignorant of the topic doesn't mean the rest of the world is ignorant.

550 million years ago? There are theories, not proof. There's a difference. And the proxy data is tenuous at best. And yet you speak of this as if it's "settled" science. It's not even remotely close.

Those others factors are studied in great depth by the science. See Crick's post #132 as an example.

By all means, please let us know ALL the inputs that affect climate. The fact is as a species we can't begin to list ALL the inputs in relation to climate, let alone quantify them or know how they interact. You can't and neither can anyone else. This is not settled science.

Temperatures in 1850 were higher than they were previous to the start of the LIA, meaning the planet had completely recovered from the LIA by 1850. Anything past that date can't be blamed on the LIA. Hence, the "The Earth is still recovering from the LIA" theory is demonstrably wrong.

And yet according to a recent study from NASA the deep oceans are still cooling in response to the LIA. Now.

The natural cycle right would be for the Earth to be very slowly cooling. That's been the overall pattern for the past 8000 years, and it should have continued into the next ice age in 25,000 - 50,000 years. Instead, the trend suddenly flipped to fast warming.

Based on what? You've suddenly discovered an infallible cycle that is supposed to happen. Please enlighten the world as to your known cycle.

I understand your motivation. If I couldn't provide any theory that explained the observed data, I'd reject the scientific method just as you did. Fortunately, the rational side can provide such a theory, so we don't need to reject the scientific method.

If you want to be taken seriously, do what the rational side did. Provide a theory that explains the observed data, and which makes predictions that get proven to be correct.

You have rejected the scientific method. Prove your theory. You do realize that correlation does not prove causation? And I'm not going to throw out a theory based on incomplete science. Climatology is in its infancy. And that doesn't even take into account the pitiful state of the data.

 

[baileyn45]

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia

Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late twentieth century levels.[1]

1) "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Archived from the original on 29 May 2006. Retrieved 2 August 2007.

The LIA is considered to have ended @1850. We are not "coming out" of it. TSI says the globe should be cooling but it is warming instead.

Evidence DOES exist as to the climate 550 million years ago. Current theories are the best available - that's how actual science works.

This says GHGs are the number one thing we should be worried about:

Science couldn't care less about theory, prove it or shut up.

- this indicates you're understanding of basic science is extraordinarily flawed.

You accuse Mamooth of having a political motivation then burst into a rant about black lives matter, black-on-black violence, black-on-Hispanic-violence, black-on-asian violence, Nazis, Russian bots, black fascism, internalized white supremacy, strong women, internalized misogyny, gender dynamics.

The impression you clearly give is that no one on this forum was the first to tell you you're a racist bigot.

The world is getting warmer. Mountains of evidence have convinced virtually all climate scientists that the primary cause is human GHG emissions. That warming represents a real threat to human well being. Effects are being seen now and we are rapidly approaching (or may have already passed) the point at which it is even possible to do anything about it. Given human reluctance to ever act as dramatically as the situation actually requires likely makes all this discussion moot, but that's another debate.

Did you even look at your chart. One natural input. One. I've listened to panels list hundreds of potential natural inputs to climate.

And again, the gist of this thread is just how pitiful the evidence of unusual warming is. It's horrid. You speak as others do that we have reached a tipping point. Based on what? How many times do we have to listen to these predictions of doom and gloom? Just to watch the predictions never come to pass.

 

[SSDD]

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia

Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late twentieth century levels.[1]

1) "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Archived from the original on 29 May 2006. Retrieved 2 August 2007.

The LIA is considered to have ended @1850. We are not "coming out" of it. TSI says the globe should be cooling but it is warming instead.

Evidence DOES exist as to the climate 550 million years ago. Current theories are the best available - that's how actual science works.

This says GHGs are the number one thing we should be worried about:

Science couldn't care less about theory, prove it or shut up.

- this indicates you're understanding of basic science is extraordinarily flawed.

You accuse Mamooth of having a political motivation then burst into a rant about black lives matter, black-on-black violence, black-on-Hispanic-violence, black-on-asian violence, Nazis, Russian bots, black fascism, internalized white supremacy, strong women, internalized misogyny, gender dynamics.

The impression you clearly give is that no one on this forum was the first to tell you you're a racist bigot.

The world is getting warmer. Mountains of evidence have convinced virtually all climate scientists that the primary cause is human GHG emissions. That warming represents a real threat to human well being. Effects are being seen now and we are rapidly approaching (or may have already passed) the point at which it is even possible to do anything about it. Given human reluctance to ever act as dramatically as the situation actually requires likely makes all this discussion moot, but that's another debate.

Did you even look at your chart. One natural input. One. I've listened to panels list hundreds of potential natural inputs to climate.

And again, the gist of this thread is just how pitiful the evidence of unusual warming is. It's horrid. You speak as others do that we have reached a tipping point. Based on what? How many times do we have to listen to these predictions of doom and gloom? Just to watch the predictions never come to pass.

Crick can't read graphs...he has proven over and over and over that he can't make heads nor tails from even the simplest of charts...he posts them because they look "sciency".... he has no idea of what they mean..

He also has no idea that the values shown in those graphs are all the output of failed models either...but like I said...he can't read them...

 

[Crick]

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia

Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late twentieth century levels.[1]

1) "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Archived from the original on 29 May 2006. Retrieved 2 August 2007.

The LIA is considered to have ended @1850. We are not "coming out" of it. TSI says the globe should be cooling but it is warming instead.

Evidence DOES exist as to the climate 550 million years ago. Current theories are the best available - that's how actual science works.

This says GHGs are the number one thing we should be worried about:

Science couldn't care less about theory, prove it or shut up.

- this indicates you're understanding of basic science is extraordinarily flawed.

You accuse Mamooth of having a political motivation then burst into a rant about black lives matter, black-on-black violence, black-on-Hispanic-violence, black-on-asian violence, Nazis, Russian bots, black fascism, internalized white supremacy, strong women, internalized misogyny, gender dynamics.

The impression you clearly give is that no one on this forum was the first to tell you you're a racist bigot.

The world is getting warmer. Mountains of evidence have convinced virtually all climate scientists that the primary cause is human GHG emissions. That warming represents a real threat to human well being. Effects are being seen now and we are rapidly approaching (or may have already passed) the point at which it is even possible to do anything about it. Given human reluctance to ever act as dramatically as the situation actually requires likely makes all this discussion moot, but that's another debate.

Did you even look at your chart. One natural input. One. I've listened to panels list hundreds of potential natural inputs to climate.

And again, the gist of this thread is just how pitiful the evidence of unusual warming is. It's horrid. You speak as others do that we have reached a tipping point. Based on what? How many times do we have to listen to these predictions of doom and gloom? Just to watch the predictions never come to pass.

Among those hundreds of natural inputs to climate, did any have sufficient forcing to be responsible for the observed warming? If so, please name them.

The gist of this thread is a charge of falsified data. For that there is pitiful little evidence. The evidence that we are undergoing unusual warming is mountainous: increasing temperatures for one, on land, sea and in the air, temperature rates, melting sea ice, decreased snow cover, disappearing glaciers, altered migratory timing, poleward movement of temperature sensitive species, misalignments in predator prey cycles, increased diurnal highs and lows, poor plant health, precipitation changes, flooding, droughts, wildfires, sea level rise, increased storm intensity due to increased SST and so on and so forth.

The warming from increased CO2 is the largest and primary driver of the increased warming. There is no lack of evidence for that conclusion. See "The Physical Science Basis" at AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC. If you have links supporting your charges, I would like to see them.

 

[skookerasbil]

Notice something?

Not one alarmist addressed the bogusness that was the East Anglia investigation!

Ghey

 

[Crick]

Because us "alarmists" understand that the dozen or so investigations* weren't bogus.

* - From the Farmer's Almanac thread
The content of the emails stolen from the East Anglia mail server were reviewed by:

• The University of East Anglia
• The American Meteorological Association
• The American Geophysical Union
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• The UK's Met Office
• The IPCC
• The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
• The Royal Scoiety of Chemistry
• The Institute of Physics
• The specially formed independent Science Assessment Panel
• The US National Academy of Science
• Pennsylvania State University
• UEA's Climate Change Email Review Committee
• Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce
• US National Science Foundation

NONE OF WHOM CONCLUDED THE STOLEN EMAILS INDICATED DATA HAD BEEN FALSIFIED. NONE.