Massive data manipulation by AGW industry!

[skookerasbil]

These people....the AGW devotees.... are epic cherry pickers....its actually astounding! Facts well detailed HERE >>

Media Hysteria: Climate Change 'Heat Records' Are a Huge Data Manipulation

The most massive hoax ever perpetuated on mankind! Not debatable.....goes back to early 1900's when temperatures were at epic high levels but CO2 levels 5x less than today! And check some of the ridiculously low temps in recent years! I laughed my balls off!

Media Hysteria: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation

Tom Wang / ShutterstockCity on a hot day. (Tom Wang / Shutterstock)

By Jay Lehr & Tom Harris
Published February 20, 2019 at 1:26pm
Modified February 21, 2019 at 10:04am
Share
The idea that climate change is producing heat records across the Earth is among the most egregious manipulations of data in the absurd global warming debate.

Americans receive a daily barrage from the fake news media and climate “experts” reporting that each and every day, week, month or year is the hottest on record due to global warming. On Feb. 7, several major newspapers carried stories of the declaration by NASA and NOAA that the past five years have been the warmest on record.

Sadly, these supposed experts use mathematical equations that do not jibe with reality over the past 140 years.



The same climate experts warn that record heat is just the tip of the iceberg. We are constantly told that global warming is the root cause behind any and all weather events that are extreme, destructive, unusual or uncomfortable.

Many of these fear mongers also say we should stop burning fossil fuels that are causing this mayhem.

Is the Earth truly experiencing the hottest weather on record?

Absolutely not!!

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

 

[Oddball]

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol

 

[Toronado3800]

These people....the AGW devotees.... are epic cherry pickers....its actually astounding! Facts well detailed HERE >>

Media Hysteria: Climate Change 'Heat Records' Are a Huge Data Manipulation

The most massive hoax ever perpetuated on mankind! Not debatable.....goes back to early 1900's when temperatures were at epic high levels but CO2 levels 5x less than today! And check some of the ridiculously low temps in recent years! I laughed my balls off!

Media Hysteria: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation

Tom Wang / ShutterstockCity on a hot day. (Tom Wang / Shutterstock)

By Jay Lehr & Tom Harris
Published February 20, 2019 at 1:26pm
Modified February 21, 2019 at 10:04am
Share
The idea that climate change is producing heat records across the Earth is among the most egregious manipulations of data in the absurd global warming debate.

Americans receive a daily barrage from the fake news media and climate “experts” reporting that each and every day, week, month or year is the hottest on record due to global warming. On Feb. 7, several major newspapers carried stories of the declaration by NASA and NOAA that the past five years have been the warmest on record.

Sadly, these supposed experts use mathematical equations that do not jibe with reality over the past 140 years.



The same climate experts warn that record heat is just the tip of the iceberg. We are constantly told that global warming is the root cause behind any and all weather events that are extreme, destructive, unusual or uncomfortable.

Many of these fear mongers also say we should stop burning fossil fuels that are causing this mayhem.

Is the Earth truly experiencing the hottest weather on record?

Absolutely not!!

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

Wait, are you telling me I better return those Acer Palmatums I just ordered?

No really, are you telling me that?

Now we can debate if they're safer in my suburban created heat island or because of global warming.

That site is busy counting states still I see also.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

When you look at the unaltered data there is no change in warming or cooling rates. I think its funny as hell to watch the alarmists squirm when even after their Karl et al manipulations we are now cooling...

 

[Toronado3800]

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

When you look at the unaltered data there is no change in warming or cooling rates. I think its funny as hell to watch the alarmists squirm when even after their Karl et al manipulations we are now cooling...

Is this our government's official stats on the issue?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 

[Billy_Bob]

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

When you look at the unaltered data there is no change in warming or cooling rates. I think its funny as hell to watch the alarmists squirm when even after their Karl et al manipulations we are now cooling...

Is this our government's official stats on the issue?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

The article has massive amounts of assumptions not based in fact.

There are groups who are challenging the narrative of our government paid shills. They refuse to publish counter points to their narrative.

 

[Toronado3800]

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

When you look at the unaltered data there is no change in warming or cooling rates. I think its funny as hell to watch the alarmists squirm when even after their Karl et al manipulations we are now cooling...

Is this our government's official stats on the issue?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

The article has massive amounts of assumptions not based in fact.

There are groups who are challenging the narrative of our government paid shills. They refuse to publish counter points to their narrative.

Wait, we are fighting against Donald's paid shills?

I don't get it. This is definitely Donald's economy now. Isn't that Donald's website?

 

[the other mike]

Just had me some Gulf of Mexico BP shrimp blackened over clean coal for dinner.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again- climate science is VERY complicated with MULTIPLE variables, some of which may still be unknown. The arrogance of mankind is manifested in the ideal we can effect the climate, the ignorance of mankind is that we understand the climate.

 

[beagle9]

It's all just a massive wealth redistribution boondoggle is what it all has been.

Made some super leftist "super rich" and "super powerful" is what it has done.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

When you look at the unaltered data there is no change in warming or cooling rates. I think its funny as hell to watch the alarmists squirm when even after their Karl et al manipulations we are now cooling...

"Hide the decline"

 

[baileyn45]

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

When you look at the unaltered data there is no change in warming or cooling rates. I think its funny as hell to watch the alarmists squirm when even after their Karl et al manipulations we are now cooling...

Is this our government's official stats on the issue?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

I found the following paragraph amusing.

"Across inaccessible areas that have few measurements, scientists use surrounding temperatures and other information to estimate the missing values. Each value is then used to calculate a global temperature average. This process provides a consistent, reliable method for monitoring changes in Earth's surface temperature over time."

I can understand how "estimate the missing values" could lead to a consistent method. Reliable, not so much.

 

[IanC]

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

When you look at the unaltered data there is no change in warming or cooling rates. I think its funny as hell to watch the alarmists squirm when even after their Karl et al manipulations we are now cooling...

Is this our government's official stats on the issue?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

I found the following paragraph amusing.

"Across inaccessible areas that have few measurements, scientists use surrounding temperatures and other information to estimate the missing values. Each value is then used to calculate a global temperature average. This process provides a consistent, reliable method for monitoring changes in Earth's surface temperature over time."

I can understand how "estimate the missing values" could lead to a consistent method. Reliable, not so much.

You have hit the nail on the head.

The Berkeley Earth temperature dataset has no temperature stations with a declining temperature trend. They have all been massaged to match 'expected values'.

 

[skookerasbil]

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

When you look at the unaltered data there is no change in warming or cooling rates. I think its funny as hell to watch the alarmists squirm when even after their Karl et al manipulations we are now cooling...

Is this our government's official stats on the issue?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

I found the following paragraph amusing.

"Across inaccessible areas that have few measurements, scientists use surrounding temperatures and other information to estimate the missing values. Each value is then used to calculate a global temperature average. This process provides a consistent, reliable method for monitoring changes in Earth's surface temperature over time."

I can understand how "estimate the missing values" could lead to a consistent method. Reliable, not so much.

You have hit the nail on the head.

The Berkeley Earth temperature dataset has no temperature stations with a declining temperature trend. They have all been massaged to match 'expected values'.

Data massaging is ghey

 

[MoneyShaker]

This whole movement was started by a guy who's own home burns more electricity than many small communities and who flies on a private jet to lecture other rich people on what poor people should doing to prevent "global climate change" I mean come on..

 

[mamooth]

If all the data didn't say that the denier cult was lying, deniers wouldn't have to rely entirely on this kind of weepy conspiracy stupidity. However, it does, so they do. That's one reason why it's so good to be on the rational side. We never need to lie or invent conspiracy theories, because the data backs us up. To "win", we merely have to point at reality.

On some level, deniers understand that they're lying. They just see their lying as morally justified, because it pushes the agenda of their holy political/religious cult. They don't possess a moral that isn't relative. And that's why they hate us. The pure shining light of the absolute morality of the rational people causes physical pain to denier moral relativists, much like sunlight burning a vampire, so they lash out at the source of that pain.

Every denier here, without exception, is a hardcore member of an extremist right wing fringe authoritarian political cult. If right wing extremism vanished, denialism would instantly vanish. In contrast, the real science crosses poltical boundaries all over the world, because it's real science. If left wing politics vanished, the science would be totally unaffected.

 

[MoneyShaker]

If all the data didn't say that the denier cult was lying, deniers wouldn't have to rely entirely on this kind of weepy conspiracy stupidity. However, it does, so they do. That's one reason why it's so good to be on the rational side. We never need to lie or invent conspiracy theories, because the data backs us up. To "win", we merely have to point at reality.

On some level, deniers understand that they're lying. They just see their lying as morally justified, because it pushes the agenda of their holy political/religious cult. They don't possess a moral that isn't relative. And that's why they hate us. The pure shining light of the absolute morality of the rational people causes physical pain to denier moral relativists, much like sunlight burning a vampire, so they lash out at the source of that pain.

Every denier here, without exception, is a hardcore member of an extremist right wing fringe authoritarian political cult. If right wing extremism vanished, denialism would instantly vanish. In contrast, the real science crosses poltical boundaries all over the world, because it's real science. If left wing politics vanished, the science would be totally unaffected.

Um,the man made climate change sycophants are clearly the authoritarians in this discussion.

 

[boedicca]

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

When you look at the unaltered data there is no change in warming or cooling rates. I think its funny as hell to watch the alarmists squirm when even after their Karl et al manipulations we are now cooling...

"Hide the decline"

 

[mamooth]

Um,the man made climate change sycophants are clearly the authoritarians in this discussion.

Yes, yes, and Flat Earthers also say their cult is being oppressed. That's standard cultist behavior, to claim oppression by the world.

And the Flat Earthers also have their cult videos to prove their case.

It's no longer a question of whether deniers are like Flat Earthers. It's only a question of whether they differ in any significant way. The answer to that seems to be "no".