climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend"

Personally I do not believe that the so called global warming has been proven. I do not know how any scientist can look at only one source when calculating global climate change. The affects of humans are driving our climate is questionable at best. There are other forces which cause climate change too. Here is more evidence that like everything else the US government is lying about the climate change data by "fixing" it. The bottom line in this text from the article sums it up... NOAA changed a 90 year cooling trend into a 90 warming trend........

Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government

link

A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official "raw" temperature record. Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.

Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “homogenized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.

Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


Your link doesn't work, but if what you are saying is true. F*ck. You cannot believe anything nowadays (although I was already pretty skeptical of global warming).

I see the earth as a sperical mass with ever moving warm and cold areas. As currently, there are artic temps in the north america section, therefore there are warmer than normal temps in the areas that are in the lower section. These ever changing seasons occasionally get out of what we call 'normal'. I estimate that as the winter season comes closer to it's end and spring closes in, we will be in a somewhat short spring which will shift these temps 180 degrees of rotation. It only stands to reason that if artic air shifts off its 'normal' lines that warm air must move opposite of it in margins. Call it an artic shift, but history shows this has happened before, but effects can be more apparent with modern technology...

teslahowitzer
I see the earth as a sperical mass with ever moving warm and cold areas. As currently, there are artic temps in the north america section, therefore there are warmer than normal temps in the areas that are in the lower section. These ever changing seasons occasionally get out of what we call 'normal'. I estimate that as the winter season comes closer to it's end and spring closes in, we will be in a somewhat short spring which will shift these temps 180 degrees of rotation. It only stands to reason that if artic air shifts off its 'normal' lines that warm air must move opposite of it in margins. Call it an artic shift, but history shows this has happened before, but effects can be more apparent with modern technology...

Um....hello?! The Earth is flat....I thought everybody knew that!!



Seriously though......

You know any kind of info that helps the deniers will just be swept under the rug

and please fix the link or give us URL

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


Man, there goes my next theory.....flat? crap! wait, let me study a slice of bread and get back to you......and you are right about the rug....

here is the link...

Figured I should throw this in here too...

Are surface temperature records reliable?

reply to post by ExNihiloRed

fixed link ... I took some time going through the article and it really lays it out showing the difference between the adjusted graphs and raw data .....

link link

I am pretty sure this is the link principia-scientific

They are on the Climate Denier List so I will take this with a pinch of salt then wait and see if it the findings are confirmed. The article has been reprinted on several other sites but that is all I have found so far.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


not sure why the link isn't working but holy crap!! I went to the site and read the article!! This is crazy......that bump in a single degrees that they hoaxed in there makes the whole thing go crazy....

Great find!!!!

Grimpachi
I am pretty sure this is the link principia-scientific

They are on the Climate Denier List so I will take this with a pinch of salt then wait and see if it the findings are confirmed. The article has been reprinted on several other sites but that is all I have found so far.

edit on 22-1-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

Isn't anyone who refutes global warming put on the denier's list?

That must be working really awesome for the warming scientists..

reply to post by alienreality


No they wind up on the list after being busted for publishing or printing fraudulent info in their case they even published things attached to perpetual motion devices. It is red flag material. They may have real findings, but they may not. That puts them in a category where the information they publish needs to be verified.

Grimpachi
reply to post by alienreality

 

No they wind up on the list after being busted for publishing or printing fraudulent info in their case they even published things attached to perpetual motion devices. It is red flag material. They may have real findings, but they may not. That puts them in a category where the information they publish needs to be verified.

edit on 22-1-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

Okay, well, anyone who has false info published to support their claims should be put on a black list IMHO.

With so much false info being bandied about it gets confusing..

reply to post by alienreality


Or you could just click on the link to see for yourself. If you think a perpetual motion is just a little thing that should be overlooked then you certainly aren't very discriminatory of who is supplying information.

If the findings are verified then great that would be awesome news. If they can't be verified well then it will not be a surprise considering the source. They have been caught on more than one occasion for not being truthful but this time they could be telling the truth. Keep your fingers crossed.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

First they called it global warming. Then we had record cold so they changed it to climate change.

They just make it up as they go along: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not to mention that they were busted manipulating the numbers...

Who has the most to gain if we decide to accept humans are influencing the climate and action is necessary? And who is most likely to worry about it?

My opinion is there's probably a lot of truth on the official science side of things, but I also think there're hidden truths and mysteries outside our awareness. I think if we look at where corruption or ignorance is most likely to exist, we might be able to figure out where the dirt is with AGW. We humans aren't angels!

I understand the logic which states we shouldn't goof around with the planet's climate with so much at stake. If there's a chance we can break it and millions can die, we should probably act even if our knowledge isn't perfect.

BUT I have to also say there's no guarantee we're completely right. It might be that warming up our planet by mistake and causing the deaths of millions of people is actually a good thing. Or might turn out millions of people do not in fact die. This is kind of like wondering what would have happened if we had not invaded Iraq in 2003. Maybe by waiting to acquire more evidence or to furnish more international support things would have been better. And who knows maybe Saddam would have mellowed some and his population would have forced him to work with the international community more. Nobody knows for sure. Until we can have a time machine or a means to travel alternate realities, we cannot say exactly whether our choices are good. All we can do is act with the best evidence available.

So what does hte best evidence say, if we moderate our viewpoint slightly to compensate for potential corruption within the science community?

reply to post by gladtobehere


Who are "they" and remind me, what does IPCC stand for again?

jonnywhite
Who has the most to gain if we decide to accept humans are influencing the climate and action is necessary? And who is most likely to worry about it?

THAT is easy:
The answer to both questions is --us--!

What do you lose if you care about the environment?

Grimpachi
reply to post by alienreality

 

Or you could just click on the link to see for yourself. If you think a perpetual motion is just a little thing that should be overlooked then you certainly aren't very discriminatory of who is supplying information.

If the findings are verified then great that would be awesome news. If they can't be verified well then it will not be a surprise considering the source. They have been caught on more than one occasion for not being truthful but this time they could be telling the truth. Keep your fingers crossed.

When it comes to the constant BS about global warming and now it turns into a denier versus whatever, why bother with links? It just keeps going back and forth and back and forth with each side claiming victory whenever some info is "verified"

The only thing that is really verified is that every single human being are all laughing imbeciles.. What I mean is that the real joke is on all of us anyways hah

I'd like to ask the OP what he/she thinks it means when temperature data is "homogenized".

It's almost 20 below zero where I am, I'm thinking global warming is a SCAM!