Global Warming or Bad Data?

[Wyatt earp]

Drunken ignorance will be ignorantly drunk.

So tell us where does Baltimore get their science from?

Baltimore argues climate case should proceed as oil companies appeal

Baltimore, which has about 60 miles of coastline, says it is already experiencing sea level rise and flooding related to climate change. The city also says its residents are suffering health effects related to other climate impacts, including more intense heat waves and extreme precipitation.

 

[edthecynic]

Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII” « JoNova

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII” « JoNova

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

Prove it..



CFACT's new billboard exposes global warming -- in their own words | CFACT

 

[edthecynic]

What a source for climate science. Obviously chosen by a drunk idiot.

John Steele Gordon is an American writer who specializes in the history of business and finance.More at Wikipedia ​

Typical fraudster, attack the messenger while ignoring his ACCURATE data.

Wait just a minute there Slick, the whole point of the lies of the OP are that the data is "BAD," and deniers have no data of their own so where does this so called "ACCURATE data" come from other than out your fat ass?????

Cant you read?, or do think the southern hemisphere is only 40 years old?

There was no southern hemisphere data in your OP, in fact the claim was that because 2% of the globe, once you eliminate all the data sites in the other 98% of the world, show no warming.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What a source for climate science. Obviously chosen by a drunk idiot.

John Steele Gordon is an American writer who specializes in the history of business and finance.More at Wikipedia ​

Typical fraudster, attack the messenger while ignoring his ACCURATE data.

Wait just a minute there Slick, the whole point of the lies of the OP are that the data is "BAD," and deniers have no data of their own so where does this so called "ACCURATE data" come from other than out your fat ass?????

Cant you read?, or do think the southern hemisphere is only 40 years old?

There was no southern hemisphere data in your OP, in fact the claim was that because 2% of the globe, once you eliminate all the data sites in the other 98% of the world, show no warming.

Well of course we have so little

 

[SSDD]

Some small bit of warming entirely consistent with natural variability and a great deal of bad, homogenized, infilled, propagandized data.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Notice that cnm, completely ignored this part from post one?

A study by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that almost 90 percent of the 1221 weather stations in the U.S. did not meet the National Weather Service’s setting standards, which requires that they be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or radiating surface. You can see some of the most egregious violators here. To deal with this defective information, climate scientists, have “adjusted” the data to solve this problem. Invariably, these adjustments have made earlier data show lower temperatures, and recent data show higher ones.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII” « JoNova

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

An oldie but goodie

Quote of the week – still "wirthless" after all these years edition

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

and from 1977 we have
‘Global Warming Solutions Same As Global Cooling Cures’ — Wait . . . What?

1977 book titled 'The Coming of the New Ice Age': The "solutions" prescribed to solve both Global Warming and the looming Ice Age are exactly the same. In both cases, proponents of the theory-du-jour say that in order to stave off disaster, we must reverse the march of civilization, stop our profligate use of carbon-based fuels, cede power and money from the First World to the Third World, and wherever possible revert to a Luddite pre-industrial lifestyle.

"there's very little we can do to stop it at this late stage, but we might be able to save ourselves if we immediately take these necessary and drastic steps," which include:

• Increasing our reliance on alternative energy sources and using less oil and other carbon-based fuels.

• Adopting energy-efficient habits in all areas of our lives, however inconvenient they are.

• Imposing punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them.

• Funneling large sums of money from developed nations such as America to Third World nations.

• In general, embracing all environmental causes.

1977 called
it says youre a brainwashed cultist who has been duped

 

[Sunsettommy]

Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII” « JoNova

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

As usual you don't show anything to support your assertion, here is the translated interview with a link to the GERMAN website where it came from:

GWPF

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”

Date: 18/11/10

Selected excerpt:

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

red bolding mine

==========================

It appears you are lying since I just gave you hard evidence that he really said those words.

 

[edthecynic]

Notice that cnm, completely ignored this part from post one?

A study by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that almost 90 percent of the 1221 weather stations in the U.S. did not meet the National Weather Service’s setting standards, which requires that they be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or radiating surface. You can see some of the most egregious violators here. To deal with this defective information, climate scientists, have “adjusted” the data to solve this problem. Invariably, these adjustments have made earlier data show lower temperatures, and recent data show higher ones.

That part is pure BULLSHIT.
No to deal with the problem they use ANOMALIES!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII” « JoNova

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

ahh Thanks for proving the quote is correct
She even state coal and oil wont be to happy about it
read it over a couple times and read the full interview

you people are stupid and insane

 

[edthecynic]

and from 1977 we have
‘Global Warming Solutions Same As Global Cooling Cures’ — Wait . . . What?

1977 book titled 'The Coming of the New Ice Age': The "solutions" prescribed to solve both Global Warming and the looming Ice Age are exactly the same. In both cases, proponents of the theory-du-jour say that in order to stave off disaster, we must reverse the march of civilization, stop our profligate use of carbon-based fuels, cede power and money from the First World to the Third World, and wherever possible revert to a Luddite pre-industrial lifestyle.

"there's very little we can do to stop it at this late stage, but we might be able to save ourselves if we immediately take these necessary and drastic steps," which include:

• Increasing our reliance on alternative energy sources and using less oil and other carbon-based fuels.

• Adopting energy-efficient habits in all areas of our lives, however inconvenient they are.

• Imposing punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them.

• Funneling large sums of money from developed nations such as America to Third World nations.

• In general, embracing all environmental causes.

1977 called
it says youre a brainwashed cultist who has been duped

Yeah, you deniers were predicting a coming Ice Age back in the 1970s and you are STILL predicting a coming Ice Age today!

Forget Warming, Here Comes Cooling: Scientists Announce Little Ice Age In Coming Decades
Forget Warming, Here Comes Cooling: Scientists Announce Little Ice Age In Coming Decades
March 27, 2019 By Vijay Jayaraj

 

[Sunsettommy]

What a source for climate science. To think I hadn't realised Commentary (Commentary is a monthly American magazine on religion, Judaism, and politics, as well as social and cultural issues.Wikipedia) is a science journal and that business and finance history is a climate science speciality (John Steele Gordon is an American writer who specializes in the history of business and finance.Wikipedia ).
Obviously the climate science go to of drunk idiots everywhere.

Meanwhile in the article you dishonestly dodged, since it shows that the best uncontaminated stations doesn't show warming in USA since 2005.

To develop reliable data, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) placed 114 state-of-the-art weather stations relatively evenly spaced about the lower 48 states. They were carefully sited to be away from urban areas, which are heat islands, airports, which can be affected by jet exhaust, etc.

The system became operative in 2005. Now, realclearenergy.com is reporting that there has been no increase in average temperatures in the continental United States over the last 14 years, as measured by these new stations. If anything, overall temperatures are slightly cooler than they were.

This is why you are often ignorant as you keep refusing the evidence from official sources.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII” « JoNova

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

In the face of incontrovertible evidence....... deny....

 

[edthecynic]

Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII” « JoNova

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

As usual you don't show anything to support your assertion, here is the translated interview with a link to the GERMAN website where it came from:

GWPF

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”

Date: 18/11/10

Selected excerpt:

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

red bolding mine

==========================

It appears you are lying since I just gave you hard evidence that he really said those words.

The German who wrote it has said the TRANSLATION is FAKE, but you knew that already.

How Climate Science Deniers Manufacture Quotes to Convince You the United Nations Is One Big Socialist Plot

All the outlets using the Edenhofer quote have relied on Google Translate to tell them what Edenhofer might have said, as the original interview was in German.

A spokesperson for Edenhofer told me the quote was used “to imply that Prof. Edenhofer ‘admits’ that there is some kind of ‘hidden agenda’ behind climate policy.“

The spokesperson added: “Of course, this is not what he was saying. These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”

 

[Sunsettommy]

Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII” « JoNova

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

As usual you don't show anything to support your assertion, here is the translated interview with a link to the GERMAN website where it came from:

GWPF

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”

Date: 18/11/10

Selected excerpt:

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

red bolding mine

==========================

It appears you are lying since I just gave you hard evidence that he really said those words.

The German who wrote it has said the TRANSLATION is FAKE, but you knew that already.

How Climate Science Deniers Manufacture Quotes to Convince You the United Nations Is One Big Socialist Plot

All the outlets using the Edenhofer quote have relied on Google Translate to tell them what Edenhofer might have said, as the original interview was in German.

A spokesperson for Edenhofer told me the quote was used “to imply that Prof. Edenhofer ‘admits’ that there is some kind of ‘hidden agenda’ behind climate policy.“

The spokesperson added: “Of course, this is not what he was saying. These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”

Oh my, you are that stupid!

Here is what dumbosmug, stated:

"All the outlets using the Edenhofer quote have relied on Google Translate to tell them what Edenhofer might have said, as the original interview was in German.

A spokesperson for Edenhofer told me the quote was used “to imply that Prof. Edenhofer ‘admits’ that there is some kind of ‘hidden agenda’ behind climate policy.“

The spokesperson added: “Of course, this is not what he was saying. These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”

Dumbosmug, never tried to prove that the interview itself was false, or was poorly translated into English, and doesn't show HOW his words are taken out of context either, since the ENTIRE interview was posted at the German site. It is a sly attempt to cast suspicion on the Interview itself, while never showing it to be false in anyway at all.

The references to E&E Legal and, Inverters Business Daily, are confusing and irrelevant, since the Interview did exist and the words of German into English are valid, you never made a case that the German website or Google translate twisted the words of Mr. Edenhofer. The interview DID happen November 14, 2010 and posted at the German Website, as even Dumbosmug blog believed it happened that day as shown here:

The quote originates from this 2010 interview, written in German.

You and Dumbass Smug blog, never made a case that it was a fake quote. It was a manufactured lie by dumbosmug, and a confused one too since their references to other websites were IRRELEVANT, a false trail.

Stop being so easily mislead!

 

[gfm7175]

Wow people are getting my main argument more and more..

New Research Suggests Some Climate Data May Be Tainted

Oh it's tainted alright... Much of it doesn't even follow the axioms of Statistical Mathematics... Much of it also outright rejects Science.

Al Gore likes to say that the science of climate change is “settled.”

First, Mr. Gore needs to define the term "climate change". Remember, circular definitions are not allowed...

But of course, science, almost by definition, is never settled.

Correct. Science is never "settled". Science is, simply put, a set of falsifiable theories.

And climate science has always suffered from the problem of shaky and missing data.

Correct. I'd say "missing data" occurs much more often than "shaky data", but correct.

Seventy percent of the globe is covered by ocean, where data is hard to collect.

Correct. Thermometers need to be uniformly spread out and simultaneously read by the same observer (to remove location and time biases), since temps have been regularly observed to vary by 20degF/mile and have been recorded to vary by as much as 49degF within a two minute time frame. We are not doing this, and even if we were, we don't have near enough thermometers to come up with an accurate result, since the margin of error is too high (due in part to the high temperature variance).

Reliable weather records only go back to about 1850 and, in many parts of the world, are far more recent. Modern recording weather stations date only to the early 20th century.

Yup. Now, keep in mind that this is only relating to those specific locations at specific points in time. It is not at all relating to the temperature of the Earth.

And many of those stations have a big problem. While they haven’t changed appreciably over the years, the land around them has changed, often profoundly, with the great growth in urban and suburban areas. The weather station that was put, say, in the middle of a Nassau County, Long Island, potato field in 1923 is still in the same spot. But the potatoes are long gone, and now it’s behind a strip mall, twenty feet from the kitchen exhaust fan of a Chinese take-out joint.

Good observation! This also skews data, especially when comparing historic to present...

A study by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that almost 90 percent of the 1221 weather stations in the U.S. did not meet the National Weather Service’s setting standards, which requires that they be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or radiating surface. You can see some of the most egregious violators here.

That wouldn't surprise me. Also, 1221 weather stations is nowhere NEAR enough stations to even begin a statistical analysis of Earth's temperature. Since the declared variances (listed above) are as high as they are, we would need upwards of 200 MILLION stations (uniformly spaced and simultaneously read) to even begin such analysis.

To deal with this defective information, climate scientists, have “adjusted” the data to solve this problem.

In other words, they are cooking the data, thus rendering it useless for statistical analysis. RAW data is required. Notice the NUMEROUS math errors that are being ignored by these "climate" "scientists"??

Invariably, these adjustments have made earlier data show lower temperatures, and recent data show higher ones.

Thus fitting in with the religious dogma... See how that works?