Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2021
6,974
4,205
938
Lynden, WA, USA
Yes I know: "Another Climate Change thread ?!"
Well I'm not sure if this would fit within an existing thread or maybe should focus of one on it's own.
EXCERPTS from a recent article;

Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data​

‘Climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,’ said astrophysicist Willie Soon.

...
Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.

The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment report as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human activities. The document states that human emissions of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in response.

But scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back. In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say it’s time to reexamine the whole narrative.


Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as “homogenization.”

The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained.

The experts said that when data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” supposedly caused by human activities disappears.

Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, they said.

Some experts told The Epoch Times that deliberate fraud appeared to be at work, while others suggested more innocent explanations.

But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.

With no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a series of interviews about their research.
....
“When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said.

While it is “definitely warmer” now than in the 19th century, Mr. Soon said that temperature proxy data show the 19th century “was exceptionally cold.”

“It was the end of a period that’s known as the Little Ice Age,” he said.


Data taken from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, and temperature proxies such as tree rings, glaciers, and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said.
“They show that the current climate outside of cities is not unusual,” he said, adding that heat from urban areas is improperly affecting the data.

“If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate.”
...
One of the scientists involved in the analysis, Peter O’Neill, has been tracking and downloading the data daily from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Global Historical Climatology Network since 2011.

He found that each day, NOAA applies different adjustments to the data.

“They use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are different.”

This is “very bizarre,” he said.

“If the adjustments for a given weather station have any basis in reality, then we would expect the computer program to calculate the same adjustments every time. What we found is this is not what’s happening,” Mr. Connolly said.
....
In a new peer-reviewed study, the coalition of scientists estimate that as much as 40 percent of the observed warming since the 19th century used by the IPCC is actually the result of this urban heat bias—not CO2-driven global warming.

“When we look at non-urban temperature data for the land, oceans, and other temperature records, the warming is much less dramatic and seems similar to other warm periods prior to the Industrial Revolution,” Mr. Connolly said.

The IPCC doesn’t control for the urban heat island effect, he said.
...
Taken together, the rural-only record shows that the moderate warming is likely just a recovery from the Little Ice Age from about A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1900, which itself followed the Medieval Warm Period from about A.D. 800 to A.D. 1200 that saw Vikings farming in Greenland.
“The Medieval Warm Period seems to have been about as warm as the modern warm period, but only when we use the rural-only record,” Mr. Connolly said.

While there has been global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, if the urban datasets are excluded, all of the primary global temperature estimates show “that the planet alternates between phases of warming and cooling,” he said.
...
 
Willie Soon. And the kook-Chinese-cult-run Epoch Times.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Willie Soon will write anything you want him to write for $50k. That's his standard price for a paper.

That is, he's a typical corrupt denier fraud.

Follow the money. All the denier scientists are bribed.

Any of the ethical scientists could triple their salaries if they would lie for deniers. They won't. They effectively take a pay cut to tell the truth, which gives them even more credibility.
 
It seems like every source has an Agenda.

The unavoidable fact is that more than half of the world's population CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be induced to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Their clearest and most rational path to modernity is to, basically, burn coal. It is cheap and plentiful. It will bring them electricity, transport, clean water, healthcare, better nutrition, better sanitation, and on and on. Who can say they must give this up, to shrink their carbon footprint?

China and India, the two most populous countries in the world, have "committed" to STABILIZE their carbon emissions by 2030 (not reduce them), and the last time I looked, they were not going to meet that modest goal.

So why should we in American drive electric cars, raise our thermostats in Summer and lower them in Winter, park our SUV's, and do all the other silly things we are told we must do in order to save the planet?

We in the West will devise engineering solutions to the problems of warming as they arise. Indeed, warming will be more of a benefit overall than a harmful development.

The Government tells us that warming is an "existential problem," and if you can't believe your government, then...
 
Willie Soon. And the kook-Chinese-cult-run Epoch Times.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Willie Soon will write anything you want him to write for $50k. That's his standard price for a paper.

That is, he's a typical corrupt denier fraud.

Follow the money. All the denier scientists are bribed.

Any of the ethical scientists could triple their salaries if they would lie for deniers. They won't. They effectively take a pay cut to tell the truth, which gives them even more credibility.
Your credibility will exist once you personal reduce your own Carbon Dioxide emissions to zero.

Until then Komrade, you are the dis-informationist spewing the Luddite platform.

BTW, "the kook-Chinese-cult-run Epoch Times" isn't a mouth piece for the Chinese Communist Party whom you are in support of, they are just the opposite, AND the many non-Chinese staff. Also global distribution.

Meanwhile, you do come across as racist, typical to you Leftist loonies = fascists.
 
Last edited:
It seems like every source has an Agenda.

The unavoidable fact is that more than half of the world's population CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be induced to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Their clearest and most rational path to modernity is to, basically, burn coal. It is cheap and plentiful. It will bring them electricity, transport, clean water, healthcare, better nutrition, better sanitation, and on and on. Who can say they must give this up, to shrink their carbon footprint?

China and India, the two most populous countries in the world, have "committed" to STABILIZE their carbon emissions by 2030 (not reduce them), and the last time I looked, they were not going to meet that modest goal.

So why should we in American drive electric cars, raise our thermostats in Summer and lower them in Winter, park our SUV's, and do all the other silly things we are told we must do in order to save the planet?

We in the West will devise engineering solutions to the problems of warming as they arise. Indeed, warming will be more of a benefit overall than a harmful development.

The Government tells us that warming is an "existential problem," and if you can't believe your government, then...
I am not a scientist and haven't even played one on TV. But just from simple observance, common sense requires anyone capable of critical thinking to at least pose some serious questions.

We have been fighting climate change for decades now with the government at all levels joining in to require energy saving appliances, heating, cooling, transportation etc. and there are few places that aren't checkered with solra panels and/or wind farms except for the rich and powerful who don't want to have to look at them.

Coal is a bad word in many parts of the country and the elimination of fossil fuels entirely is on many green energy advocates' agenda. And all those millions of EVs, reduction and elimination of coal, all the energy saving appliances, heating and cooling units, going from incandescent light bulbs to LEDs etc......all of it combined apparently has not reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere by a single measurable particle.

Nobody who doesn't embrace the AGW religion is unwelcome on media, in many large businesses, in education, in scientific institutions, in leftwing governments. When did science stop becoming curious, asking questions, exploring possible options, testing data, etc. and become a monolithic entity speaking with one voice which in this case is AGW? Why are the errors in date, admission of altering or omitting data, questions of flawed processes in gathering data etc. illegal to be even questioned much less investigated?

And why do those studying and making policy re climate change seem to be living their own lives as if there is no issue at all?
 
We in the West will devise engineering solutions to the problems of warming as they arise. Indeed, warming will be more of a benefit overall than a harmful development.

The Government tells us that warming is an "existential problem," and if you can't believe your government, then...

Lol.
 
  • Fact
Reactions: cnm
I am not a scientist and haven't even played one on TV. But just from simple observance, common sense requires anyone capable of critical thinking to at least pose some serious questions.

We have been fighting climate change for decades now with the government at all levels joining in to require energy saving appliances, heating, cooling, transportation etc. and there are few places that aren't checkered with solra panels and/or wind farms except for the rich and powerful who don't want to have to look at them.

Coal is a bad word in many parts of the country and the elimination of fossil fuels entirely is on many green energy advocates' agenda. And all those millions of EVs, reduction and elimination of coal, all the energy saving appliances, heating and cooling units, going from incandescent light bulbs to LEDs etc......all of it combined apparently has not reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere by a single measurable particle.

Nobody who doesn't embrace the AGW religion is unwelcome on media, in many large businesses, in education, in scientific institutions, in leftwing governments. When did science stop becoming curious, asking questions, exploring possible options, testing data, etc. and become a monolithic entity speaking with one voice which in this case is AGW? Why are the errors in date, admission of altering or omitting data, questions of flawed processes in gathering data etc. illegal to be even questioned much less investigated?

And why do those studying and making policy re climate change seem to be living their own lives as if there is no issue at all?
That is the million dollar question.
 
Yes I know: "Another Climate Change thread ?!"
Well I'm not sure if this would fit within an existing thread or maybe should focus of one on it's own.
EXCERPTS from a recent article;

Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data​

‘Climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,’ said astrophysicist Willie Soon.

...
Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.

The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment report as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human activities. The document states that human emissions of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in response.

But scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back. In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say it’s time to reexamine the whole narrative.

Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as “homogenization.”

The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained.

The experts said that when data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” supposedly caused by human activities disappears.

Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, they said.

Some experts told The Epoch Times that deliberate fraud appeared to be at work, while others suggested more innocent explanations.

But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.

With no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a series of interviews about their research.
....
“When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said.

While it is “definitely warmer” now than in the 19th century, Mr. Soon said that temperature proxy data show the 19th century “was exceptionally cold.”

“It was the end of a period that’s known as the Little Ice Age,” he said.


Data taken from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, and temperature proxies such as tree rings, glaciers, and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said.
“They show that the current climate outside of cities is not unusual,” he said, adding that heat from urban areas is improperly affecting the data.

“If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate.”
...
One of the scientists involved in the analysis, Peter O’Neill, has been tracking and downloading the data daily from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Global Historical Climatology Network since 2011.

He found that each day, NOAA applies different adjustments to the data.

“They use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are different.”

This is “very bizarre,” he said.

“If the adjustments for a given weather station have any basis in reality, then we would expect the computer program to calculate the same adjustments every time. What we found is this is not what’s happening,” Mr. Connolly said.
....
In a new peer-reviewed study, the coalition of scientists estimate that as much as 40 percent of the observed warming since the 19th century used by the IPCC is actually the result of this urban heat bias—not CO2-driven global warming.

“When we look at non-urban temperature data for the land, oceans, and other temperature records, the warming is much less dramatic and seems similar to other warm periods prior to the Industrial Revolution,” Mr. Connolly said.

The IPCC doesn’t control for the urban heat island effect, he said.
...
Taken together, the rural-only record shows that the moderate warming is likely just a recovery from the Little Ice Age from about A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1900, which itself followed the Medieval Warm Period from about A.D. 800 to A.D. 1200 that saw Vikings farming in Greenland.
“The Medieval Warm Period seems to have been about as warm as the modern warm period, but only when we use the rural-only record,” Mr. Connolly said.

While there has been global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, if the urban datasets are excluded, all of the primary global temperature estimates show “that the planet alternates between phases of warming and cooling,” he said.
...

Wrong.
Sure climate has always changed, but in a 110,000 yearlong cycle, which now should be cooling.
The fact is we have artificially introduced an additional warming on top of the natural warmest period.

We know this it the warmest it has ever been for hundreds of thousands of years because the Northwest Passage opened up in 1997, for the first time in over a hundred thousand year.
We see all the glaciers disappearing, like Mt. Kilimanjaro is bald now.

Sure there was slight warming around 1000 AD, but it is MUCH warmer now.
 
I am not a scientist and haven't even played one on TV. But just from simple observance, common sense requires anyone capable of critical thinking to at least pose some serious questions.

We have been fighting climate change for decades now with the government at all levels joining in to require energy saving appliances, heating, cooling, transportation etc. and there are few places that aren't checkered with solra panels and/or wind farms except for the rich and powerful who don't want to have to look at them.

Coal is a bad word in many parts of the country and the elimination of fossil fuels entirely is on many green energy advocates' agenda. And all those millions of EVs, reduction and elimination of coal, all the energy saving appliances, heating and cooling units, going from incandescent light bulbs to LEDs etc......all of it combined apparently has not reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere by a single measurable particle.

Nobody who doesn't embrace the AGW religion is unwelcome on media, in many large businesses, in education, in scientific institutions, in leftwing governments. When did science stop becoming curious, asking questions, exploring possible options, testing data, etc. and become a monolithic entity speaking with one voice which in this case is AGW? Why are the errors in date, admission of altering or omitting data, questions of flawed processes in gathering data etc. illegal to be even questioned much less investigated?

And why do those studying and making policy re climate change seem to be living their own lives as if there is no issue at all?

Because we know from polar ice cores what the historical record is, and that we are way beyond any natural event.
And we also know that all the work we have done for decades has helped a great deal.
Science is monolithic on AGW because it has been verified from so many different source, angles, studies, experiments, etc.

And on top of all that, it does not matter.
Since we are running out of fossil fuels, then we would soon be forced to switch to alternatives anyway, so there is nothing to lose by accelerating the switch.
 
Because we know from polar ice cores what the historical record is, and that we are way beyond any natural event.
And we also know that all the work we have done for decades has helped a great deal.
Science is monolithic on AGW because it has been verified from so many different source, angles, studies, experiments, etc.

And on top of all that, it does not matter.
Since we are running out of fossil fuels, then we would soon be forced to switch to alternatives anyway, so there is nothing to lose by accelerating the switch.
1710041246469.png
 
Wrong.
Sure climate has always changed, but in a 110,000 yearlong cycle, which now should be cooling.
The fact is we have artificially introduced an additional warming on top of the natural warmest period.

We know this it the warmest it has ever been for hundreds of thousands of years because the Northwest Passage opened up in 1997, for the first time in over a hundred thousand year.
We see all the glaciers disappearing, like Mt. Kilimanjaro is bald now.

Sure there was slight warming around 1000 AD, but it is MUCH warmer now.
A reminder, this planet exited a long ice-age just C. 15,000 years ago and ideal would be we are still in a warming cycle, overall, away from the glaciation. Better than being in cooling cycle towards another ice age.

Two of many errors you AGW/ACC fanatic true-believers make are:
1) You think there is a no-flux, stable , unchanging climate stasis for Earth, like setting the thermostat in your home.
2) You fail to PROVE that the slight increase of CO2, to one part per 2,500 of the atmosphere, is the cause of any warming (climate change either way), that it is only human caused CO2 emissions doing such false hypothesis, that such is harmful compared to the alternative = plunging into another Ice Age.

BTW, when can we expect your to the integrity of your belief and position and reduce your own personal emissions of Carbon Dioxide to zero?

iu
 
Yes I know: "Another Climate Change thread ?!"
Well I'm not sure if this would fit within an existing thread or maybe should focus of one on it's own.
EXCERPTS from a recent article;

Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data​

‘Climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,’ said astrophysicist Willie Soon.

...
Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.

The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment report as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human activities. The document states that human emissions of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in response.

But scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back. In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say it’s time to reexamine the whole narrative.

Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as “homogenization.”

The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained.

The experts said that when data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” supposedly caused by human activities disappears.

Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, they said.

Some experts told The Epoch Times that deliberate fraud appeared to be at work, while others suggested more innocent explanations.

But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.

With no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a series of interviews about their research.
....
“When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said.

While it is “definitely warmer” now than in the 19th century, Mr. Soon said that temperature proxy data show the 19th century “was exceptionally cold.”

“It was the end of a period that’s known as the Little Ice Age,” he said.


Data taken from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, and temperature proxies such as tree rings, glaciers, and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said.
“They show that the current climate outside of cities is not unusual,” he said, adding that heat from urban areas is improperly affecting the data.

“If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate.”
...
One of the scientists involved in the analysis, Peter O’Neill, has been tracking and downloading the data daily from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Global Historical Climatology Network since 2011.

He found that each day, NOAA applies different adjustments to the data.

“They use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are different.”

This is “very bizarre,” he said.

“If the adjustments for a given weather station have any basis in reality, then we would expect the computer program to calculate the same adjustments every time. What we found is this is not what’s happening,” Mr. Connolly said.
....
In a new peer-reviewed study, the coalition of scientists estimate that as much as 40 percent of the observed warming since the 19th century used by the IPCC is actually the result of this urban heat bias—not CO2-driven global warming.

“When we look at non-urban temperature data for the land, oceans, and other temperature records, the warming is much less dramatic and seems similar to other warm periods prior to the Industrial Revolution,” Mr. Connolly said.

The IPCC doesn’t control for the urban heat island effect, he said.
...
Taken together, the rural-only record shows that the moderate warming is likely just a recovery from the Little Ice Age from about A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1900, which itself followed the Medieval Warm Period from about A.D. 800 to A.D. 1200 that saw Vikings farming in Greenland.
“The Medieval Warm Period seems to have been about as warm as the modern warm period, but only when we use the rural-only record,” Mr. Connolly said.

While there has been global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, if the urban datasets are excluded, all of the primary global temperature estimates show “that the planet alternates between phases of warming and cooling,” he said.
...
climategate_AIT.jpg
 
Because we know from polar ice cores what the historical record is, and that we are way beyond any natural event.
And we also know that all the work we have done for decades has helped a great deal.
Science is monolithic on AGW because it has been verified from so many different source, angles, studies, experiments, etc.

And on top of all that, it does not matter.
Since we are running out of fossil fuels, then we would soon be forced to switch to alternatives anyway, so there is nothing to lose by accelerating the switch.
How do you know anything other than what you are allowed to hear. Have you done the hands on research yourself? Have you checked the credentials, track record, affiliation, funding of the scientists you choose to believe? And if they are so certain, why do they force anyone who disagrees with them or sees it differently out of their organizations. Why are such people forbidden to make their case on most media?

I am not a scientist but I know what science is. And science asks questions and encourages, certainly allows all points of view. When it doesn't do that it is not science. It is either self serving propaganda or politics.
 
Which means it is EXPANDING, you scientific illiterate!

If it were shrinking it would be getting SMALLER!

IT'S GETTING BIGGER YOU IGNORANT CLOD!
I am pleased to see you do not neglect your contra-indicator function on this bored. Kudos

Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.
 
Of course the data collection is rigged .
We told them that twenty years ago . And demonstrated it .
The IPCC is a political body set up to find ways of better controlling people .
People like Crick Crock .
Gullibles .
 

Forum List

Back
Top