100 Percent Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

Warming is real. We had two weeks straight of 100 degree weather in Washington 2 summers ago, which was unheard of. Now I'm in Texas again and it's 80 degrees at the end of December, which is hot even for here.

But if you don't believe weather you can look at animals moving their habitats north, and the seasons shifting for absolute proof:

io9.gizmodo.com...

originally posted by: CB328
Warming is real. We had two weeks straight of 100 degree weather in Washington 2 summers ago, which was unheard of. Now I'm in Texas again and it's 80 degrees at the end of December, which is hot even for here.

But if you don't believe weather you can look at animals moving their habitats north, and the seasons shifting for absolute proof:

io9.gizmodo.com...

That's more 'climate change' per se, seasons should shift a little in a very long time basis as the Earth slows down in it's rotation, probably with dynamic effects inside the Earth as well. Add to that the variablity of the Earth's tilt toward the Sun which also changes over very long periods. That variability is a given of between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees, and that's bound to make a difference in the seasons at some time anyway. Still and all, for DC, it is a hot spot anyway, and has been warmer in the past.

a reply to: luthier

It's kind of hard to repeat a 'experiment' when it's actually a in house custom coded computer model simulation...

The thing with computer models and the people that make them:
-As if anyone alive is smart enough to design such a thing that would be both accurate & sophisticated enough to project much of anything of use past a year or so.
-As if any computational array short of being one of the best super-computer clusters in the world could even run such a simulation.
-As if humanity even understands enough about any single given factor to be able to achieve such a model, let alone even the complete list(s) of all given factors that would affect such a stellar/global/local model over a period of decades.
-As if none short of the most gifted human individuals could even be truly impartial to such a task in general, then factor in the fact that most scientists (in any field) self-identify as liberal's/Democrat's, while it's pretty safe to expect that a high portion of individuals whom enter environmental sciences have a strong emotional appeal towards such ends (which would be an increasing phenomenon given the rise of environmentalism and its often deliberately emotional driven propaganda campaigns; not to mention the increasingly strong appeal to groupthink & over-defensive mass social group self-identification inherent in modern liberal philosophy along with the rampant neo-marxist indoctrination happening on college campuses nowadays). Hell, nowadays we're even seeing liberals proclaim that science & math 'themselves' are sexist & racist; that global warming is racist.
-As if any of the available datasets are without flaws. Consider that even minor flaws would make for increasingly messier computations the longer they are projected outwards. Now factor that too many of them we know about have major flaws (such "fudge factors" know to be 'caused' by anything from human error, inherent data-set specific limitations, and even documented cases of malicious human intent).
-As if we could possibly account for unforeseeable events or trends, or could even be sure if we truly understand if we're even on a trend (and what that trend means to the future).
-As if environmentalists don't have a rather solid track record of ridiculously over-stating their case in essentially every juncture of the movement / important instance of debate.
-As if there isn't any conflict of interest in the way climate research funding is allocated (based on what climate scientists say about how important it all is).
-As if climate scientists don't tend to always speak in absolutes about this kind of stuff, as if anybody is smart & wise & ultimately omnipotent enough to actually know everything in absolutist terms.
-As if the community doesn't have a track record of being ruthless against dissenting or even just doubtful voices (note that some are already going as far as declaring a dictatorial global government needs to be installed to stop it; others assert that "deniers" (aka skeptics) should be locked away in prison to be silenced).
-As if the bulk of the reading materials the environmentally minded individual could possibly read doesn't overtly advocate environmental idealism and even advocacy (all of which would therefore be classified as proper propaganda). Google: "echo chamber".

So that's what I could think of while typing in about 15 minutes. Note that I haven't even spent but something of a total of about a few hours over the past about 5 years thinking or studying up much on the global warming subject.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I can tell you haven't spent much time thinking about the subject or reading actual papers in science never mind climate science.

Never mind understanding modelling.

Perhaps you have no idea how often modelling is used across all of science?

Modelling alone is not the bulk of the data anyhow. It's a tool like anything else.

There is a conflict of interest in science for sure. Hence the need for peer review.

Eventually the falacy is discovered because of the process, if your right it will come out. A conspiracy of 10's of thousands of people is pretty much impossible to keep hidden for any length of time.


Edit a couple links to get you thinking.
www.skepticalscience.com...

www.skepticalscience.com...

a reply to: luthier

And I can tell you're not particularly keen or impartial on hopelessly intertwined topics such as the scores of flaws in human nature, group psychology, the inherent limitations of current science + computer technology (then coupled with the complexities of such global scale predictive attempts at things not even fully understood by our species as a whole), the inherent fallacy of the very idea of a would-be "scientific consensus" (even without that list of human factors I just rolled out above, which ensures the case with it), propheteering, etc.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: luthier

And I can tell you're not particularly keen or impartial on hopelessly intertwined topics such as the scores of flaws in human nature, group psychology, the inherent limitations of current science + computer technology (then coupled with the complexities of such global scale predictive attempts at things not even fully understood by our species as a whole), the inherent fallacy of the very idea of a would-be "scientific consensus" (even without that list of human factors I just rolled out above, which ensures the case with it), propheteering, etc.

Really you can tell that how?

Your basically saying science isn't useful.

All of my statements are indicating it's very hard to have a mass conspiracy of tens of thousands of scientists writing thousands of papers. If any of what your saying is true and it could be, it will be found by skeptical scientists and if they are legitimate will publish a paper. It is true they could be black listed by major journals but that can't stop them from publishing a paper and eve tally having it scrutinized.

Most of the skeptics writing articles don't ever produce a paper to be scrutinized. They write articles in conservative opinion news magazines.

My backround is in philosphy, particularly cosmology and ontology (granted I am making guitars for a living because I don't like teaching) I have read a lot papers and a lot of models in astrophysics. Not all of which I completely comprehend but, all this human nature talk can be said about anything.

There is far more junk science and falacy in many of the common arguements against climate change. Not saying all of them or there isn't a strong chance of conflict of interests.

Just there is certainly no where near the data available to say climate change is junk science.

Nobody should view science as a gnostic. That should be your first indication something is off.

a reply to: luthier

Dude, its politicized science (the most politicized science).

Actually read my list up there again, google that stuff, you'll see.

Read into Climategate and how the pure-AGW crowd works to block out papers that cast any doubt.

Read into my extensive list of threads and you'll find that the sorts of 'flaws in human nature' I'm alluding to here are a common theme in my work. Make sure you check out my "Socio-Agnosticism" piece.

Hint: if you consider yourself an 'insider' on this area; if you're a democrat / an environmentalist (or worse: BOTH); etc; then the odds are overwhelming that you are extremely subject to falling under much of that list, and going by political neuroscience I'm familiar with -if BOTH be the case- then I'm mostly just wasting my time with you. (nothing personal, its just we humans collectively are insane; especially when collectivist ideals permeate)

The bigger the group, the more the self-confirmation and dogmatic group adherence; the bigger the group, the more groupthink and the more stupid the individuals within it become. This applies even without politics, and especially with it.

The FACT is humans just dont yet know enough about hardly anything to do with what it would mean for future temps and what such future temps would truly mean for the world; the computer science isn't enriched enough, etc, etc, etc for anybody to be declaring much of anything about the future in ABSOLUTES (this would go either way for 'either side'). When people declare such in absolutes, like with a subject like a "god", its faith. The more absolutely they declare it the more absolutely self-deluded they are on such a topic.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Last month there was also an apparent mistake found in the climate model used for projections linked to CO2. If the mistake is real, then the entire correlation between temperature and CO2 disappears. The paper that highlights the error and posits a different theory is currently under peer review.

It's still unclear.

What is clear is that the media and some powerful people have pushed one side of an argument as fact, whilst claiming a consensus that does not exist.

I wonder if someday soon some tenured and idiotically brave
post-doctor could submit a paper for peer review describing
the validity in the ten biggest cash cows CREATED by AGW--
and link those to the people most responsible for the
problem that doesn't seem to scientifically pass muster
using the common sense of a fruit fly.
It's almost pathetic or even amusing that science could have
been so completely co-opted by charlatans in less than a century.

Moncton, where are you this weekend? A dram for you, pater.

sarc/
Of course, taxing the Earth's population beyond death will
immediately staunch the toboggan slide of our atmosphere
degenerating into that of Venus'-- but I always loved this
profitable magnitude of doom porn.
It makes my legs want to become Chris Matthews'. /sarc

Stupid is as stupid intellectually tolerates.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Your wasting your time with me because I am married to a scientist. She doesn't work in climate change. My brother has two phds he had paid for by three universities in physics. My father was an aerospace engineer. I am a philospher by education.

If your talking about politics I align closest to Rand Paul of any current politician.

However, I also understand the destruction of more habitat is a massive concern with a growing global population. There is no way around that. There is only so much "stuff" and when we take too much of it we end up with habitat collapses. I could care less about carbon trading or political moves.

Personally I believe the solutions are artifact based.

But still calling thousands of scientific papers and 10's of thousands of scientists frauds is as bad as a rabid environmentalist.

It's certainly something worth looking at agnostically in my opinion. Knowing there are conflicts of interest on BOTH sides.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

The absolutely useless weather forecasts lately have been mind boggling in my area...i can look at the models and see what will happen 90% of the time

.whilst the weather experts have been right about 10% all December.

They really have no clue...and they like to believe they know what is going on.

I think within one year more...they will be forced to admit they are as deluded and caveman like as all the rest of the religious in the world

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Your wasting your time with me because I am married to a scientist. She doesn't work in climate change. My brother has two phds he had paid for by three universities in physics. My father was an aerospace engineer.

And that makes you an authority on what exactly? Reread what I said about groupthink (collective untelligence).

I am a philospher by education.

Philosophy is good; important. But philosophy doesn't provide a full picture of the human mind without psychology, which can't provide a full picture of the human mind without social psychology; while you can't much understand the mind without studying the brain. The brain/mind/consciousness all each separately and as a whole of course which despite centuries of research, it being ourselves, we still know so little about despite knowing so much. Just like with climate science, especially global scale predictive climate science, where we know more about the moon than we do the oceans (which is probably due to the fact the moon has no 'climate').

University Education for some decades now is more towards indoctrination in social conformity than practical academics. Self-education is the true agnostic path, and aside from my degree in electronics engineering, I'm 90% self taught and have spent more time doing this work than a phd path. A path which I recommend for all, but I fear not everybody is cut out for such self-determinism, given the indoctrination into absurdity, systematic reliance, and social conformity we're all bombarded with our entire lives.

However, I also understand the destruction of more habitat is a massive concern with a growing global population. There is no way around that. There is only so much "stuff" and when we take too much of it we end up with habitat collapses.

True. But altering global temperature by a handful of Fahrenheit degree doesn't inherently mean global destruction, instead that notion is a worst case predictive scenario, one lacking in actual historical case studies to guide us, yet pushed forth as TRUTHFUL FACT by Malthusian ideologues.

To make matters worse, it's often obvious that environmentalists often lump in, or rather scream the AGW agenda in some bizarre attempts to 'solve' other environmental collapse scenarios (both realistic and hysterical ones at that). And direct deliberate appealing to irrational emotions is an overt agenda I've heard direct from the mouths of AGW activist leaders, which to me is the wrong way to go (cue up discussions of the flaws of human nature, and then those of the types of people whom attempt to manipulate such flaws and the typical reasons of which they typically do).

But still calling thousands of scientific papers and 10's of thousands of scientists frauds is as bad as a rabid environmentalist.

There's so many ways we could go with that sentence. Here are a few off the top of my head:

I'm certain that in the minds of essentially every democrat & republican, fascist & nazi & communist & corporatist & et al & etc, that they aren't or weren't frauds, and that their causes are or were noble / justified / what is or was or will be best for society and even the world. Just because they beLIEve in it doesn't mean it isn't so, while just because they don't beLIEve they're being 'fraudulent' doesn't mean they are not.

1000's of papers on climate science that don't 'debunk' AGW doesn't mean they also inherently PROVE it. Anybody that tells you otherwise is a liar / is self-deluded (a liar).

I didn't realize there are tens of thousands of climate scientists... I guess I never really checked. Seriously though, if you're referring to all of those scientist societies whom each have many members, many of which are specific to certain fields of science, many others of which are not, that their boards all 'signed the we agree' letter or however they went about getting on that 'Scientific Consensus' page in wikipedia... Well did each and every society go and poll all of the scientists and come back with unanimous results, and then call up the IPCC... are all of the members of each society even competent on the issues... are any of members of each society (the board memberss that issued the statements especially) immune from that big list above that I opened up with in here... and on... and on?

Is there anything we can actually do about it at the moment assuming the worst case scenario is even real, short of imploding the global economy? (Which would nearly ensure a total ecosystem collapse as nothing devastates the environment like impoverished humans.)

It's certainly something worth looking at agnostically in my opinion. Knowing there are conflicts of interest on BOTH sides.

Yes it is, as is everything else. But as usual the MSM etc only ever seem to give light to the two opposing binary perspectives in their endless false dichotomy of a Binary MENTAList vision of the world they batter us with forever in their pursuits of divide & conquer.

Break free:
Socio-Agnosticism [the Truth always lies in between and seldom is it ever nearly as 'true' as people assert]

Likewise... this statement "100 Percent Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering" is absolutist and self-deluded too. Like with a religion, or religions, of god gods & atheism, for anyone to declare their view as the TRUTH anything about any of which we actually cant possibly KNOW is self-delusion at best (even if one cow in the herd actually does happen to have the real deal, they cant actually know it for a fact). With religion, and AGW, agnosis is the only truth that can be spoken in absolution.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
The narrative that has been pushed for a while now is that we humans are having an effect upon the global climate. I do not know how true that is. I know we make ungodly messes out of things, but to affect the climate on a global scale? I'm not quite sure about that.

"Climate change" has been happening for the last 12,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age. Are we aggravating it? Sure, we could be. Did we cause it? Not for a single second.

The opposite of an Ice Age is a Warm Age, but nobody wants to call it that.

The North American continent is still rebounding from the glaciers that were on top of it during the last Ice Age - which could change the spin of the planet. Slowing the planet's spin down would make the sun melt more/heat us up more because it would stay on any spot longer.

Of course, we would start to notice a difference in our clocks if that was the case. Interesting how my clocks seem to be losing a minute here and there. Digital clocks shouldn't do that. But also, we've only been using clocks for a couple of centuries. And only very accurately for about 50 years or so. And only personally accurate since cell phones became more dominant.

Also, there is evidence of a meteor impact at the end of the last Ice Age that could have had an effect on the rotation of the planet and the change of seasons.

I'm very positive that they don't really know.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Your wasting your time with me because I am married to a scientist. She doesn't work in climate change. My brother has two phds he had paid for by three universities in physics. My father was an aerospace engineer.

And that makes you an authority on what exactly? Reread what I said about groupthink (collective untelligence).

I am a philospher by education.

Philosophy is good; important. But philosophy doesn't provide a full picture of the human mind without psychology, which can't provide a full picture of the human mind without social psychology; while you can't much understand the mind without studying the brain. The brain/mind/consciousness all each separately and as a whole of course which despite centuries of research, it being ourselves, we still know so little about despite knowing so much. Just like with climate science, especially global scale predictive climate science, where we know more about the moon than we do the oceans (which is probably due to the fact the moon has no 'climate').

University Education for some decades now is more towards indoctrination in social conformity than practical academics. Self-education is the true agnostic path, and aside from my degree in electronics engineering, I'm 90% self taught and have spent more time doing this work than a phd path. A path which I recommend for all, but I fear not everybody is cut out for such self-determinism, given the indoctrination into absurdity, systematic reliance, and social conformity we're all bombarded with our entire lives.

However, I also understand the destruction of more habitat is a massive concern with a growing global population. There is no way around that. There is only so much "stuff" and when we take too much of it we end up with habitat collapses.

True. But altering global temperature by a handful of Fahrenheit degree doesn't inherently mean global destruction, instead that notion is a worst case predictive scenario, one lacking in actual historical case studies to guide us, yet pushed forth as TRUTHFUL FACT by Malthusian ideologues.

To make matters worse, it's often obvious that environmentalists often lump in, or rather scream the AGW agenda in some bizarre attempts to 'solve' other environmental collapse scenarios (both realistic and hysterical ones at that). And direct deliberate appealing to irrational emotions is an overt agenda I've heard direct from the mouths of AGW activist leaders, which to me is the wrong way to go (cue up discussions of the flaws of human nature, and then those of the types of people whom attempt to manipulate such flaws and the typical reasons of which they typically do).

But still calling thousands of scientific papers and 10's of thousands of scientists frauds is as bad as a rabid environmentalist.

There's so many ways we could go with that sentence. Here are a few off the top of my head:

I'm certain that in the minds of essentially every democrat & republican, fascist & nazi & communist & corporatist & et al & etc, that they aren't or weren't frauds, and that their causes are or were noble / justified / what is or was or will be best for society and even the world. Just because they beLIEve in it doesn't mean it isn't so, while just because they don't beLIEve they're being 'fraudulent' doesn't mean they are not.

1000's of papers on climate science that don't 'debunk' AGW doesn't mean they also inherently PROVE it. Anybody that tells you otherwise is a liar / is self-deluded (a liar).

I didn't realize there are tens of thousands of climate scientists... I guess I never really checked. Seriously though, if you're referring to all of those scientist societies whom each have many members, many of which are specific to certain fields of science, many others of which are not, that their boards all 'signed the we agree' letter or however they went about getting on that 'Scientific Consensus' page in wikipedia... Well did each and every society go and poll all of the scientists and come back with unanimous results, and then call up the IPCC... are all of the members of each society even competent on the issues... are any of members of each society (the board memberss that issued the statements especially) immune from that big list above that I opened up with in here... and on... and on?

Is there anything we can actually do about it at the moment assuming the worst case scenario is even real, short of imploding the global economy? (Which would nearly ensure a total ecosystem collapse as nothing devastates the environment like impoverished humans.)

It's certainly something worth looking at agnostically in my opinion. Knowing there are conflicts of interest on BOTH sides.

Yes it is, as is everything else. But as usual the MSM etc only ever seem to give light to the two opposing binary perspectives in their endless false dichotomy of a Binary MENTAList vision of the world they batter us with forever in their pursuits of divide & conquer.

Break free:
Socio-Agnosticism [the Truth always lies in between and seldom is it ever nearly as 'true' as people assert]

Likewise... this statement "100 Percent Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering" is absolutist and self-deluded too. Like with a religion, or religions, of god gods & atheism, for anyone to declare their view as the TRUTH anything about any of which we actually cant possibly KNOW is self-delusion at best (even if one cow in the herd actually does happen to have the real deal, they cant actually know it for a fact). With religion, and AGW, agnosis is the only truth that can be spoken in absolution.

So yeah your not going to convinve me of anything. So you can stop trying.

You have no math backround to even check the work. You haven't bothered to read papers. I mentioned nothing about the msm at all. I don't get my info there.

I doubt you read any scientific papers.

Your hiding behind your arm chair position.

Your not agnostic in your claims,your a true believer in the opposite direction

If you were reasonable you would see that I have always admitted everything your saying could be true but would be discovered eventually. That is how science works.

Example in the medical field clinical trials are said to be 50 percent false. This can be found even with statements from past editors from the journals themselves. The thing is they find this out be retesting and not getting results from the published papers.

My point with my upbringing is that I am surrounded by critical thinkers. As much as you think there is some illuminati club across all of science there is not.

If my father was full of crap for instance jet engines wouldn't work.


You will also notice I said I could care less about carbon or carbon taxing. I do care about consumption and if it were slowed or alte re d would have the effect of lowering carbon.

I said the solutions are artifact based.

You went on a political right wing rant without regarding anything I said besides believing I was making an appeal to authority.

So go ahead and go to rallies and hold signs, I will keep looking at BOTH sides of this issue.

a reply to: TrueAmerican I do believe they are skewing the data to support their push for global warming to be accepted as real. Hurricanes get recorded as being strong category 4s and then they hit land with the impact of weak category 2s. I'm referring to the one that hit Mexico last year and the one that hit Florida this year. Wind speeds were nowhere near what they forecast. The Florida hurricane did drench the Carolinas and cause severe damage, but that was largely due to the fact that those areas had seen heavy rainfall in the weeks prior and just a few days earlier. And temperature readings are going to be higher just by virtue of heat pockets from developed areas being where they take the readings. More asphalt and concrete are going to raise the temperature. Plus they probably fudged that data a little as well. And if Global Warming is real, why have they taken the steps to threaten to arrest anybody who questions it? That is insane and quite tyrannical. Now they said the Artic was going to see record temps but just south of there it was a good 30 degrees colder and now we're seeing polar vortexes already. Maybe its not so much global warming by man but some other phenomena they won't admit to. No money to be mad ein fluctuating magnetic poles or solar influences.

a reply to: Dutchowl

The money to be made is the issue. As is the overlords deciding how to do it.

We talk about carbon taxing when we allow lobbyists to alter the energy market to keep competition from gaining ground.

The solutions for over consumption have been created for decades with artifacts of efficiency and cleaner energy yet the products have almost no chance of reaching the market when their competitors are getting grants and subsidies or out right laws made to cripple them.

Not very excited as smart as tillerman is to have a man from the largest lobbying group as a sec of state. Exon pays about 300k a day to lobby. Something start ups obviously could never do.

a reply to: luthier



You clearly have no clue who you're even dealing with. You clearly didn't even hear my words if you actually read them. You certainly didn't read my link, or follow up on any of the points I made or follow the trail of breadcrumbs I threw down in every direction.

It appears you read my opening sentence about 'knowing a bunch of science people makes you an expert how' and saw red and went off the rails in a power rant. That was quite a rant I must admit. I love a good rant.

Since your brain is hardwired into your religion there, no amount of level headed, philosophical, agnostic type reasoning with you will ever matter. A shame as when I wrote that response i thought there might be some hope for you not be a total ideologue hardliner. Good luck with that approach with any thing in life.

Are you saying you were raised by your wife and your brother? Here goes another bit of logic that at this point I'm sure I'm wasting my time saying to you: engineering and critical thinking aren't mutually related. Nor is math & critical thinking. A mathematician can become a loony toons astrologist. An engineer can become a culty Scientologist. But, in any case, your father being the inventor of the jet engine now that's impressive!!

I said the solutions are artifact based.

What do you mean by that exactly?

You went on a political right wing rant without regarding anything I said...

If that were the case then my arguments would have rigidly followed the logic of the thread title. Instead I criticized it just the same as the kinds of ABSOLUTIST assertions from the other side.

In my experience as a most Pure Agnostic in religious terms, it's interesting that absolutist Christian's disavow anything of the sort of agnosticism and gladly kick us to the atheist in total disgust of of our heresies. What's interesting here in this religion-centric case study is the science oriented Atheists love to try to absorb us into their group (by making bold assertions that we're actually Atheists (because they cant stand the idea of being proper polar extremes of the same short sighted irrational absolutist caliber as the Christian's whom they loathe and love to insult & criticize).

In my experience as a most Pure Agnostic in political terms, back in my Bush bashing days (during his presidency when toppling his warmongering and the support for it) on a daily basis I'd be labeled a liberal, despite the bulk of my words being staunchly of those of a libertarian minded independent. Then when Obama became the new cult of personality, and quickly became apparent as a Bush 2.0 w/ slightly different rhetoric (on majority of the specific fronts that I spent the most time attacking Bush over all of those years), almost over-night even some of my subscribers of years (in my old blog) turned on me like rabies, all of my past criticisms of their enemy Bush were forgotten, labeling me a Republican / conservative / etc became the new rage. It's funny, all yer I've bee labeled on a near daily basis a 'right winger' a 'conservative' etc etc because I was critical of ObamaHillaryCo, for putting them two and the DNC through the same constant critiquing as I used to BushCo. and the RNC through. The difference is I just gave ObamaHillaryCO. a free pass for over 5 years I never showed up to bother with them, in fact during His entire 8 years UI hardly ever spent any time keeping on him let alone writing about him. I'm certain you don't want t hear the reason why I never bothered (because I predicted the Obama followers would be even more hardcore enculted than even the Bush people were), but its funny because despite going so easy on Obama for some many years that doesn't even buy me any credit as a more moderate minded independent type with His worshippers.

What are your thoughts on ObamaHillaryCo.?

Well thanks for the head spinning lesson here. Should make for a great case study to paste into my Socio-Agnosticism thread. I'll be nice about it at least. After you cool off here, you might actually go read the entirely of that thread, assuming you're anything half of this seasoned philosopher as your exclaim. hen let that sink in for maybe an hour or so. Then come back here and re-read my work in this thread.

Shocker! The government fed us false info. Run for the hills! We're all going to die! The truth of the matter is that the temps had been increasing slightly up to 1997 and then began decreasing again. It is the perihelion cycle and it has been doing this since the beginning of time. Now, I know that all of the climate change people are going to disagree, but facts don't lie. The last 2 perihelion points were 1922 and 1997. 1922 = Dustbowl and 1997 = Drought that killed all of the fruit trees in Florida and throughout the southern states. The whole climate change agenda is nothing but another attempt to get more money from us through the BS carbon footprint debate. I wish people would wake up. The main people (Al Gore, Michael Moore, etc.) who are spouting all of the BS each have a carbon footprint larger than a small town in just their homes. When will people realize that the people spewing all of the BS are the biggest offenders? If you want to solve an issue, don't ask the problem.

originally posted by: pianopraze
Seems the only thing that's clear to me is:

The science is NOT settled.

Yes it is settled. The media, armchair scientists, and nefariously funded "research" (which has never once been proven legitimate) is screwing over me and every other scientist out there. The science community is pulling their hair out watching you people try to figure it out.

Let me help you. It's not just about this one set of data. A big part of ecology research is about understanding the feedback loops that occur between all the different factors that influence our climate and environment. We have an infinite amount of data provided at so many different levels in ecology through independent researchers across the planet that it has become impossible to disprove the data. Let me repeat that. The supporting data from soil, atmospheric, population, geological, rangeland, and oceanic has made it impossible to disprove the temperature data. IMPOSSIBLE. There never was any fraud except by anyone who got caught. We know how to catch people faking data. It happens all the time and those people get removed from their positions. Seen it happen a few times firsthand. I'm sorry, but once again the theory of climate change is not a conspiracy theory. It's just not. Get that out of your head once and for all and stop getting your information from people who have zero actual experience and education in science or on doing climate research. It's like ignoring the mechanic who was educated in cars by the engineers at Porsche AG and has been taking pretty damn good care of your car for free your whole life and spiting him for no reason whatsoever to take repair advice from that drunk homeless guy behind your nearest 7/11. ATS is the drunk homeless guy in this analogy.

originally posted by: ConstitutionalPatriot
Shocker! The government fed us false info. Run for the hills! We're all going to die! The truth of the matter is that the temps had been increasing slightly up to 1997 and then began decreasing again. It is the perihelion cycle and it has been doing this since the beginning of time. Now, I know that all of the climate change people are going to disagree, but facts don't lie. The last 2 perihelion points were 1922 and 1997. 1922 = Dustbowl and 1997 = Drought that killed all of the fruit trees in Florida and throughout the southern states. The whole climate change agenda is nothing but another attempt to get more money from us through the BS carbon footprint debate. I wish people would wake up. The main people (Al Gore, Michael Moore, etc.) who are spouting all of the BS each have a carbon footprint larger than a small town in just their homes. When will people realize that the people spewing all of the BS are the biggest offenders? If you want to solve an issue, don't ask the problem.

Lies. All lies. You have no science experience and are not educated in the field. Stop spreading your ignorance.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
ATS is the drunk homeless guy in this analogy.

Wow, so now I'm not only drunk, but homeless too. Wrong on both counts. You got any other bright ideas?