The Climate Change Industry and the Hoax of Global Warming

[bripat9643]

I would stand to gain from robbing a bank. May we the assume me guilty of the last bank robbery in my area? This is all just more of your grand conspiracy among the unusually corrupt field of climate science. IOW, it's your ignorant, unevidenced, anti-science bullshit.

But you wouldn't benefit financially from robbing banks because there's a great risk of going to prison. There is nu such risk in the case of lying about climate change. The more you lie, the more you benefit financially.

 

[Crick]

Scientists shown to be willfully lying about their results lose their jobs and will never get hired again. Many HAVE gone to jail. When you say "nu such risk", you are either lying or exposing your ignorance. The careers, which they worked much harder to create than you or I, will be over.

When you suggest that 97% of climate scientists indulge in such behavior, it is YOUR willful dishonesty that's exposed.

 

[bripat9643]

Scientists shown to be willfully lying about their results lose their jobs and will never get hired again. Many HAVE gone to jail. When you say "nu such risk", you are either lying or exposing your ignorance. The careers, which they worked much harder to create than you or I, will be over.

Horseshit. Michale Mann and Phil Jones are still employed and even widely admired among the climatology community.

When you suggest that 97% of climate scientists indulge in such behavior, it is YOUR willful dishonesty that's exposed.

Some are just gullible fools. Others know they are pushing horseshit on the public.

 

[Stephanie]

Threads like this should be in the conspiracy folder, along with the moon landing hoaxers, birthers, flat earthers, antivaxxers and 9/11 truthers.

Global warming denialism is literally nothing but a conspiracy cult now. It's time to stop being politically correct, and to treat it as a conspiracy cult.

Why? You afraid that the facts will get out so you wish to censor everything that doesn't comport to your fraud?

Threads like this should be in the conspiracy folder, along with the moon landing hoaxers, birthers, flat earthers, antivaxxers and 9/11 truthers.

Global warming denialism is literally nothing but a conspiracy cult now. It's time to stop being politically correct, and to treat it as a conspiracy cult.

Why? You afraid that the facts will get out so you wish to censor everything that doesn't comport to your fraud?

this is where they show their Fascist ways. calling people DENIERS isn't working so well. so they just want ALL other information out to be labeled a conspiracy. what sad little people if they weren't so Dangerous to US

 

[IanC]

I would stand to gain from robbing a bank. May we the assume me guilty of the last bank robbery in my area? This is all just more of your grand conspiracy among the unusually corrupt field of climate science. IOW, it's your ignorant, unevidenced, anti-science bullshit.

bank robbing? what the hell does that have to do with climate? trolling I see.

Try to keep up with the conversation. Paddie (BriPat) seems to think that because he believes scientists would benefit financially from claiming AGW were taking place, that they must all be lying about it; they must be making it all up. All of them. In unison. It's the grand conspiracy strategy. I would benefit from robbing a bank. Therefore, by Paddies logic, I must be guilty of bank robberies in my area.

Got it?

there is a saying about an honest man making a mistake. once the mistake is pointed out to him then he is no longer honest if he repeats the mistake.

the climate science landscape is littered with mistakes and omissions that never get corrected. methodologies that get reused after they are shown to be incorrect. datasets that get preferentially used even though superior updated ones are available. adjustments are made seemingly for no other reason than to push the results in a prefered direction.

climate science was on a slippery slope when they started to 'fudge' results in the 90's. without the skeptics's criticisms all the bogus results would still be in place to this day. I will again point out Mann's use of the Tiljander proxies in an upsidedown orientation. he has never admitted that he made a mistake although it is widely accepted that it was. since then legitimate scientists have stayed away from making the same mistake, and have even 'fixed' their own work although they seldom make a point of actually calling it a mistake.

 

[edthecynic]

adjustments are made seemingly for no other reason than to push the results in a prefered direction.

climate science was on a slippery slope when they started to 'fudge' results in the 90's. without the skeptics's criticisms all the bogus results would still be in place to this day.

Funny how you never object to adjustments made in YOUR preferred direction. Your buddies Spencer and Christy, who were fudging their results in the 90s, have just made yet another major adjustment to the data, V6.0, which lowers the warming trend some more. They still have not turned it into cooling like they did when they used the opposite sign to adjust for diurnal satellite drift, but they did reduce it with each adjustment since they were originally forced to correct their data.

Why have you and WUWT, etc., not bitched about all their "adjustments" and posted blink diagrams of their cooling changes, hypocrite?

 

[IanC]

adjustments are made seemingly for no other reason than to push the results in a prefered direction.

climate science was on a slippery slope when they started to 'fudge' results in the 90's. without the skeptics's criticisms all the bogus results would still be in place to this day.

Funny how you never object to adjustments made in YOUR preferred direction. Your buddies Spencer and Christy, who were fudging their results in the 90s, have just made yet another major adjustment to the data, V6.0, which lowers the warming trend some more. They still have not turned it into cooling like they did when they used the opposite sign to adjust for diurnal satellite drift, but they did reduce it with each adjustment since they were originally forced to correct their data.

Why have you and WUWT, etc., not bitched about all their "adjustments" and posted blink diagrams of their cooling changes, hypocrite?

we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention. they continue to monitor it. unlike the altimetry results for sea level rise, etc. do you disagree with RSS too? I think it is a positive situation where two groups with different standing on the problem are both trying to check and improve the results. there should be more of that in climate science.

 

[edthecynic]

adjustments are made seemingly for no other reason than to push the results in a prefered direction.

climate science was on a slippery slope when they started to 'fudge' results in the 90's. without the skeptics's criticisms all the bogus results would still be in place to this day.

Funny how you never object to adjustments made in YOUR preferred direction. Your buddies Spencer and Christy, who were fudging their results in the 90s, have just made yet another major adjustment to the data, V6.0, which lowers the warming trend some more. They still have not turned it into cooling like they did when they used the opposite sign to adjust for diurnal satellite drift, but they did reduce it with each adjustment since they were originally forced to correct their data.

Why have you and WUWT, etc., not bitched about all their "adjustments" and posted blink diagrams of their cooling changes, hypocrite?

we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention. they continue to monitor it. unlike the altimetry results for sea level rise, etc. do you disagree with RSS too? I think it is a positive situation where two groups with different standing on the problem are both trying to check and improve the results. there should be more of that in climate science.

So it is not the fact the that data is adjusted that bothers you deniers, it is only the direction of the adjustments!
Thank you.

 

[edthecynic]

we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention.

that's how you spin it, but UAH changed nothing. In fact they refused to even check their code for years when their data matched no one else's. Finally RSS got tired of deniers using UAH's fudged data to accuse RSS and NOAA of fudging the data and RSS checked the UAH code at RSS's own expense and valuable time, and then RSS published their results. UAH was FORCED to admit their error and use the RSS corrections.

 

[IanC]

adjustments are made seemingly for no other reason than to push the results in a prefered direction.

climate science was on a slippery slope when they started to 'fudge' results in the 90's. without the skeptics's criticisms all the bogus results would still be in place to this day.

Funny how you never object to adjustments made in YOUR preferred direction. Your buddies Spencer and Christy, who were fudging their results in the 90s, have just made yet another major adjustment to the data, V6.0, which lowers the warming trend some more. They still have not turned it into cooling like they did when they used the opposite sign to adjust for diurnal satellite drift, but they did reduce it with each adjustment since they were originally forced to correct their data.

Why have you and WUWT, etc., not bitched about all their "adjustments" and posted blink diagrams of their cooling changes, hypocrite?

we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention. they continue to monitor it. unlike the altimetry results for sea level rise, etc. do you disagree with RSS too? I think it is a positive situation where two groups with different standing on the problem are both trying to check and improve the results. there should be more of that in climate science.

So it is not the fact the that data is adjusted that bothers you deniers, it is only the direction of the adjustments!
Thank you.

UAH is making adjustments to improve their product in a reasonably transparent way. I have no problem if you want to criticize how they are doing it.

I personally have a problem with surface station adjustments because it appears that they are changing measured values to meet expectaions of what they think global temperature should be, in a hidden way with no specific explanations for individual cases. that might be OK if people realized that global temp is a fabricated result but most people think it is a combination of real measurements with some adjustments rather than just adjustments to meet expectations.

 

[IanC]

we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention.

that's how you spin it, but UAH changed nothing. In fact they refused to even check their code for years when their data matched no one else's. Finally RSS got tired of deniers using UAH's fudged data to accuse RSS and NOAA of fudging the data and RSS checked the UAH code at RSS's own expense and valuable time, and then RSS published their results. UAH was FORCED to admit their error and use the RSS corrections.

you can believe what you want.history tells a different story.

 

[Old Rocks]

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

So where does that leave us? An "Executive Summary" by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, co-authored by John Christy of UAH concludes:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.

This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."
In other words, according to UAH, satellite measurements match the models apart from in the tropics. This error is most likely due to data errors. According to RSS, satellites are in good agreement with models.

Well, whatever the underlying cause, the mistake was on the part of the UAH team, and when corrected, their data showed what everybody else's data did.

 

[IanC]

by that line of reasoning then you should also be agreeing that the MWP has returned and the skeptics are right because every new proxy dataset, or updated dataset has strengthed its reality.

'consistent with' has been an excuse of the warmers for a long time. it also works in the other direction. Mann tried to kill the MWP but it has risen from the dead like Lazarus

 

[edthecynic]

adjustments are made seemingly for no other reason than to push the results in a prefered direction.

climate science was on a slippery slope when they started to 'fudge' results in the 90's. without the skeptics's criticisms all the bogus results would still be in place to this day.

Funny how you never object to adjustments made in YOUR preferred direction. Your buddies Spencer and Christy, who were fudging their results in the 90s, have just made yet another major adjustment to the data, V6.0, which lowers the warming trend some more. They still have not turned it into cooling like they did when they used the opposite sign to adjust for diurnal satellite drift, but they did reduce it with each adjustment since they were originally forced to correct their data.

Why have you and WUWT, etc., not bitched about all their "adjustments" and posted blink diagrams of their cooling changes, hypocrite?

we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention. they continue to monitor it. unlike the altimetry results for sea level rise, etc. do you disagree with RSS too? I think it is a positive situation where two groups with different standing on the problem are both trying to check and improve the results. there should be more of that in climate science.

So it is not the fact the that data is adjusted that bothers you deniers, it is only the direction of the adjustments!
Thank you.

UAH is making adjustments to improve their product in a reasonably transparent way. I have no problem if you want to criticize how they are doing it.

I personally have a problem with surface station adjustments because it appears that they are changing measured values to meet expectaions of what they think global temperature should be, in a hidden way with no specific explanations for individual cases. that might be OK if people realized that global temp is a fabricated result but most people think it is a combination of real measurements with some adjustments rather than just adjustments to meet expectations.

Except they publish explanations for every change, you just ignore them so you can lie about them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

So where does that leave us? An "Executive Summary" by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, co-authored by John Christy of UAH concludes:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.

This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."
In other words, according to UAH, satellite measurements match the models apart from in the tropics. This error is most likely due to data errors. According to RSS, satellites are in good agreement with models.

Well, whatever the underlying cause, the mistake was on the part of the UAH team, and when corrected, their data showed what everybody else's data did.

".....errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected"

WTF?

Bernie Madoff's account says, "Errors in the audits showing how your money was used have been identified and corrected"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

So where does that leave us? An "Executive Summary" by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, co-authored by John Christy of UAH concludes:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.

This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."
In other words, according to UAH, satellite measurements match the models apart from in the tropics. This error is most likely due to data errors. According to RSS, satellites are in good agreement with models.

Well, whatever the underlying cause, the mistake was on the part of the UAH team, and when corrected, their data showed what everybody else's data did.

".....errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected"

WTF?

Bernie Madoff's account says, "Errors in the audits showing how your money was used have been identified and corrected"

When the satellites don't validate the models, you adjust the data? really?

 

[edthecynic]

we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention.

that's how you spin it, but UAH changed nothing. In fact they refused to even check their code for years when their data matched no one else's. Finally RSS got tired of deniers using UAH's fudged data to accuse RSS and NOAA of fudging the data and RSS checked the UAH code at RSS's own expense and valuable time, and then RSS published their results. UAH was FORCED to admit their error and use the RSS corrections.

you can believe what you want.history tells a different story.

No, denier revisionist history tells a different story.

 

[IanC]

we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention.

that's how you spin it, but UAH changed nothing. In fact they refused to even check their code for years when their data matched no one else's. Finally RSS got tired of deniers using UAH's fudged data to accuse RSS and NOAA of fudging the data and RSS checked the UAH code at RSS's own expense and valuable time, and then RSS published their results. UAH was FORCED to admit their error and use the RSS corrections.

you can believe what you want.history tells a different story.

No, denier revisionist history tells a different story.

I certainly realize I amnot going to convince you. I just advise people to look for themselves before accepting your version of events

 

[edthecynic]

we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention.

that's how you spin it, but UAH changed nothing. In fact they refused to even check their code for years when their data matched no one else's. Finally RSS got tired of deniers using UAH's fudged data to accuse RSS and NOAA of fudging the data and RSS checked the UAH code at RSS's own expense and valuable time, and then RSS published their results. UAH was FORCED to admit their error and use the RSS corrections.

you can believe what you want.history tells a different story.

No, denier revisionist history tells a different story.

I certainly realize I amnot going to convince you. I just advise people to look for themselves before accepting your version of events

Here is the abstract of the paper were outside scientists Mears and Wentz of RSS made the corrections UAH refused to make for more than a decade.

The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature

Published Online August 11 2005Science 2 September 2005:
Vol. 309 no. 5740 pp. 1548-1551
DOI: 10.1126/science.1114772

• REPORT

The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature

1. Carl A. Mears,
2. Frank J. Wentz

+Author Affiliations

1. ABSTRACT
   Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to Earth's surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites' measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the opposite sign from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature.

 

[IanC]

I am unwilling at this time to reinvestigate a topic that has been previously discussed. it holds no interest to me presently but I reserve the right to comment later if the urge hits me.