Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

But do you know who he is.?

http://uclimate.com/index.php

I know he posts his shite on a blog and not a publication with scientifically peer reviewed data at least that I could see on the worthless link you offered. The link did not direct me to any evidence or anything else that was useful. Total waste of time, as are all the deniers and conspiracy whacks out there.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming


When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

Christopher Booker ehh? Oh dear-

The mistakes he made in his last column almost compare to his all-time cock-up of cock-ups, in which he pointed out, in February 2008, that "Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all." The "warmists", he said, had made much of the fact that in September 2007 northern hemisphere sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But now the ice cover had bounced back, proving how wrong they were. He even published a graph to demonstrate that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. In other words, Booker appeared incapable of distinguishing between summer and winter.

The latest example of gibberish very nearly reaches these giddy heights. Though he has been writing about energy policy for longer than I can remember, Booker now demonstrates that the most basic energy concepts elude him.
Here is what he wrote on Sunday:

"Like many other households who, during all that global warming last winter, watched the cost of their oil-fired central heating soaring through the roof, we are now switching to gas. Thus did I learn that the absurdly over-large boiler we are getting rid of generates 100 kilowatts.
"Hang on, I exclaimed: that wind turbine up the hill from where we live in Somerset generated only just over 500kW last year. So a giant wind turbine that cost £2m to build, and that costs us £200,000 a year in subsidies, on top of the £200,000 we pay for its electricity, produces only five times as much energy as the oil-fired boiler I use to warm my house."

The average 12-year-old should be able to spot at least one of the mistakes here, but let me spell them out. I'll begin with the word "produces", as in "produces only five times as much energy as the oil-fired boiler I use to warm my house.".
I'll give Booker the benefit of the doubt and assume he is aware that energy is neither created nor destroyed. If so, this must mean he is talking about useful energy, and that "produces" means converting energy we cannot use into energy we can use. A wind turbine turns the energy in wind into electricity. But a boiler does not produce energy, even in the sense that Booker appears to mean. It uses energy. The energy is contained in the oil it burns, which it converts into heat. Booker, it seems, cannot tell the difference between production and consumption.
Nor does he seem able to distinguish between heat and electricity. He seems to have mistaken his boiler for a generator. Boilers (furnaces in the US) produce heat, not power. You cannot make a meaningful comparison between the production capacity of heat and the production capacity of electricity.

Perhaps worst of all, he doesn't know the difference between capacity and output. "That wind turbine generated only just over 500kW last year" is as meaningful as "my car travelled 200 horsepower last year".

500kW is the capacity (or rating) of the wind turbine. The output is measured in kilowatt hours. It beggars belief that, after writing on this subject for so many years, he appears to be unaware of the difference.

Summer and winter, production and consumption, heat and power, capacity and output: are there any distinctions Christopher Booker recognises? Isn't it time that the Sunday Telegraph not only protected its readers from this nonsense but also protected him from himself, by either retiring him or, at the very least, checking his facts?
monbiot.com

So G so because he ain't got a PHD, he doesn't count hey.

So that rules our Einstein,Rockefeller,churchill,steve Jobs,Lincoln,Mark twain,Henry Ford,Shakespeare amongst many others

Well considering these men in part shaped the world there of no significance in your eyes because they ain't qualified.

Originally Posted by MrG

I know he posts his shite on a blog and not a publication with scientifically peer reviewed data at least that I could see on the worthless link you offered. The link did not direct me to any evidence or anything else that was useful. Total waste of time, as are all the deniers and conspiracy whacks out there.

Sabang are you on crack.

You've got the wrong person.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

So G so because he ain't got a PHD, he doesn't count hey.

So that rules our Einstein,Rockefeller,churchill,steve Jobs,Lincoln,Mark twain,Henry Ford,Shakespeare amongst many others

Well considering these men in part shaped the world there of no significance in your eyes because they ain't qualified.

Originally Posted by MrG

I know he posts his shite on a blog and not a publication with scientifically peer reviewed data at least that I could see on the worthless link you offered. The link did not direct me to any evidence or anything else that was useful. Total waste of time, as are all the deniers and conspiracy whacks out there.

I never mentioned a Phd. But I guess you needed to make that your paper tiger so you could "shoot it down".

As for that list of names you mentioned, they didn't have Phds, but their ideas and actions did produce actual results, not blogs pulled out of their ass.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

You've got the wrong person.

It doesn't matter who you got. If they ain't part of the religion then they're a disbelieving heathen.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Sabang are you on crack.

You've got the wrong person.

Yes he does. Booker is the author of the article you posted. He is a well known hack who repeatedly tries to push already debunked theories about the temperature conspiracy theory. He cites Paul Homewood as a "source".

Both of these men lack any legitimate scientific qualifications.

You should really fact check your sources more thoroughly before you post. Especially if you do not even know who wrote the article.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/kev...cy-theory.html

Global Warming ?Pause? Extends Nearly 18 And A Half Years | The Daily Caller

And you snub along with the other sheep have bought into the $21 billion scam,by govt thieves and liars.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Sabang are you on crack.

You've got the wrong person.

Yes he does. Booker is the author of the article you posted. He is a well known hack who repeatedly tries to push already debunked theories about the temperature conspiracy theory. He cites Paul Homewood as a "source".

Both of these men lack any legitimate scientific qualifications.

You should really fact check your sources more thoroughly before you post. Especially if you do not even know who wrote the article.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/kev...cy-theory.html

Top scientists start to examine 'fiddled' global warming figures...

Say it isn't so!

"Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

An adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures."

The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama;

Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.
Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those
published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.

Below, the raw data in graph form



Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - Telegraph

I can't believe they would fiddle with the data, can you?

^ Why do you keep reposting the same debunked nonsense over and over again? Christopher Booker is a buffoon with no scientific background. Stop spamming the forum with repackaged dribble.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

And you snub along with the other sheep have bought into the $21 billion scam,by govt thieves and liars.

The only one who is buying into a scam is you. Your tinfoil paranoia has you quoting right wing blogs like the daily caller and latching on to conspiracy theories concocted by big oil shills.

^


Biggest hoax ev-vah!

BM your not qualified to make such accusations.

^ Two science denying flat earth morons. I pity the fool.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Two science denying flat earth morons. I pity the fool.

But it wouldn't be as much fun without them.

^Exactly.

NOAA CAUGHT REWRITING US TEMPERATURE HISTORY (AGAIN)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration here in the U.S., have systematically adjusted temperature history to make the past look colder. They apparently do this, usually surreptitiously and without explanation, in order to stoke global warming hysteria. See, for example, He Who Controls the Present Controls the Past and Inside the Global Warming Scandal.

Now Mike Brakey, an engineering physicist and heat transfer specialist, has caught NOAA revising historic temperature data for Maine–as always, to make the past look cooler and the present warmer by comparison:

Over the last months I have discovered that between 2013 and 2015 some government bureaucrats have rewritten Maine climate history… (and New England’s and of the U.S.). This statement is not based on my opinion, but on facts drawn from NOAA 2013 climate data vs. NOAA 2015 climate data after they re-wrote it.

We need only compare the data. They cooked their own books



This graph presents the data visually. The black line shows average annual temperatures for Maine from 1895 to the present as they were recorded at the time, and as NOAA published them in 2013. Thermometers have recorded no net warming since 1895. The blue line represents NOAA rewritten history as it appears in 2015. Note how NOAA reduces earlier temperatures more than recent ones to give the graph a plausibly warming trend. The green line shows average annual temperatures for a single location, Lewiston-Auburn, showing a steep decline since 2000.



NOAA has made similar adjustments to past temperatures around the United States. Brakey writes:

It appears NOAA panicked and did a massive rewrite of Maine temperature history (they used the same algorithm for U.S. in general). The new official temperatures from Maine between 1895 and present were LOWERED by an accumulated 151.2°F between 1895 and 2012.

In my opinion, this is out-and-out fraud. Why did they corrupt national climate data? Global warming is a $27 billion business on an annual basis in the U.S alone.

Now NOAA data revised in 2015 indicate that 1904, 1919 and 1925 in Maine were much colder than anything we experience today. (See the scorecard above comparing the NOAA data that are 18 months apart). Note how for 1913 the NOAA lowered the annual temperature a whole 4°F!

For the balance of the years, as they get closer to the present, the NOAA tweaks less and less. They have corrupted Maine climate data between 1895 and present by a whopping accumulated 151.2°F."

NOAA Caught Rewriting US Temperature History (Again) | Power Line

Why do LIV's continue to believe in fraudsters such as the NOAA, Al Gore etc?

More news and isn't good.

Global carbon dioxide levels break 400ppm milestone

Concentrations of CO2 greenhouse gas in the atmosphere reached record global average in March, figures show, in a stark signal ahead of Paris climate talks

Record carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere were recorded worldwide in March, in what scientists said marked a significant milestone for global warming.

Figures released by the US science agency Noaa on Wednesday show that for the first time since records began, the parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere were over 400 globally for a month.

The measure is the key indicator of the amount of planet-warming gases man is putting into the atmosphere at record rates, and the current concentrations are unprecedented in millions of years.

The new global record follows the breaking of the 400ppm CO2 threshold in some local areas in 2012 and 2013, and comes nearly three decades after what is considered the ‘safe’ level of 350ppm was passed.

“Reaching 400ppm as a global average is a significant milestone,” said Pieter Tans, lead scientist on Noaa’s greenhouse gas network.

“This marks the fact that humans burning fossil fuels have caused global carbon dioxide concentrations to rise more than 120ppm since pre-industrial times,” added Tans. “Half of that rise has occurred since 1980.”

Deja vu ..... Seems 400ppm level has been passed several times on this thread; has the old data been readjusted down to allow this recurring event...

Anyway, more co2 is great news - hope we hit 500 ppm soon

Originally Posted by blue

has the old data been readjusted down to allow this recurring event...

There's an awful lot of that kind of readjusting in the climate business. The US$27 billion a year business.... We are being advised of significant milestones almost daily.....yet we are also told that the actual temperature has only gone up about eight tenths of one degree since before the industrial revolution....

Who was measuring and establishing average global temperatures before the industrial revolution anyway, and how were they doing it?

Now; what new milestone do we need to reach before 2016 and what data do we need to readjust in order to reach it?

Originally Posted by koman

The US$27 billion a year busines

Do you have some sort of link to back that up? I doubt it. Oh you just pulled from Boons post above and didnt even bother to fact check it. A claim from a wacko right wing blog still pushing long debunked claims. Great source.

A drop in the bucket to big oil's trillions of annual revenue. They are the ones behind the science denial conspiracy so many idiots cling to.

You keep coming back to this thread bleating on with no facts. Look at the other science deniers you are allied with in this thread.

Blue, Boon mee and Horatio Hornblower. None of you have any legitimate evidence to back up your claims. Boon keeps reposting the same disproven articles over and over and over.

Of course all of you claim it is a conspiracy. The entire global scientific community is in collusion. NASA, NOAA, IPCC, The World Meteorological society etc etc are part of a global conspiracy for a meager $28 billion in annual revenue that you most likely can not even prove exists.

HAHAHHAAA!