The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

a reply to: Justoneman

Nearby? define "nearby". You've lost me completely there.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Justoneman

Nearby? define "nearby". You've lost me completely there.

Russian location instead of Canada on the Magnetic North Pole .

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...
Water molecules will follow the new Magnetic pole and circulate around the new location. Thus changing the jet stream pattern and where the rain/snow develops. The British Isle and Northern Europe seems to be getting it worse than before the poles shifted.

a reply to: Justoneman

But the poles haven't shifted yet. They still wobble around Inside a normal range. If they would have shifted we'd notice.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Justoneman

But the poles haven't shifted yet. They still wobble around Inside a normal range. If they would have shifted we'd notice.

Not the physical pole the magnetic pole that affects your compass.

ETA

good observation BTW

a reply to: Justoneman

Yes the magnetical pole. How would the physical poles shift? Fly around?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Justoneman

Yes the magnetical pole. How would the physical poles shift? Fly around?

Well if the physical pole shifts we would see the oceans sloshing around and we would have some 100's of millions dead if not several billions. Magnetic Pole shift is much better. Things change just not so apocalyptic.

The how it would happen might be the wobble of the Earth gets altered and we change pole location.

a reply to: Justoneman

No.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Justoneman

No.

I wasn't predicting a Pole shift anyway. Only speculating as to what might cause one. We already know why the Earth's mag poles shift. The cycles suggest that it is nothing drastic but we weren't a scientifically sophisticated lot when the last large cycle event occurred as we are now. We have witnessed some of this pole shifting, but not well enough to understand what we are observing.

originally posted by: 727Sky
Several years ago when the global warming craze got started I figure I was like most and wanted to know more. It was not a super burning desire but I took the time to try and listen to both sides when I came across something on the subject. Several years ago I looked at the records in the states for the 1930s which were actually warmer than anything since, yet you really do not hear of that fact now do we ?....One of the many clues for me not all was legit in AGW field when actual measured temps are overlooked or done away with.

I always questioned the computer climate models simple because climate is not a few things you can isolate and program a computer and expect the result to be accurate. Our knowledge is lacking as far as everything involved with climate... That has certainly been proven correct, as none of the models (remember the hockey stick graft ?) reflect what can actually be observed.. some models were predicting in 2013 the Arctic would be ice free. Did not happen and still has not happened.. AND WILL NOT happen according to my crystal ball; but hey some must think, let us not look at past forecast especially if they do not agree with what is wanted for an outcome, much less observed with boots on the ground.

Then a few years ago there were accusations about climate temps being fiddled with by government supported institutions to help push along the grand NWO wealth distribution plan through carbon taxes.. True or not doubt was sowed and blame was in the news.

If things were real there would be no reason to fiddle, adjust, lie, or create fictitious numbers to push a B.S. agenda. Simple as far as I am concerned.

Since the official government mantra for all of the bureaucracies at least since the Clinton era is that CO2 production is an evil that inevitably leads to runaway global warming, those who toil in the bureaucracies' statistical sweat shops know that their careers and future funding depend on having the politically correct answers — not the scientifically correct ones.

I personally am in the cycle court. Meaning Earth goes through cycles; burn me if you want, but the darn sun is the driver.. I have not seen one actual observable unfiddled physical data to support AGW when long term earth's history is looked at. Meritless conjecture based on the inadequacy of certain computer data sets basically comes down to trash in trash out.. Kinda like a video game where you are the hero and have to save the universe... Might be fun but it lacks "in the reality department" severely .

Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.

Certainly not the first time I and probably others have heard that statement.. Always rebutted by the AGW preachers who see money in their cause.

But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

Far from legitimately "adjusting" anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government's underlying policies for the better part of two decades.

What NOAA does aren't niggling little changes, either.

As Tony Heller at the Real Climate Science web site notes, "Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895."

The linked article is interesting to me simply because it is just one more article showing how money and agenda can push a cause... Yes I am bias on this subject.. I used to pretty much believe in science and I still do.. But I believe in real science with real data sets and numbers not programed computer models of climate to arrive at a predetermined bought and paid for outcome.

www.investors.com...
youtu.be...
I am also in the camp where I believe history repeats as far as this ball of earth dirt is concerned. If I am wrong the planet will get warmer and that will be something we will have to deal with depending on where you live. I doubt earth will become Venus #2.

If we are going into a really cool or cold spell people are going to starve due to growing seasons being messed up or nonexistent in certain areas of planet earth.

I was at a wedding last night for a British friend who had six couples come from the U.K. to attend the event..It was a Buddhist wedding (about a hundred people) with food to die for... I was not even hungry and ate for a solid two hours... No kidding hahah... Anyway I had been hearing just how bad the winter has been in Europe not just the U.K. and I really got an ear full of the freezing temps, impassable roads, and flight delays which some are experiencing in various parts of Europe. None seem to think they could remember it being this bad...and these are not spring chickens either as all were closer to 70 than 60 years of age.. I guess that what got me (plus some extra time today as I need a break from golf) to start this thread..?
youtu.be...

One way of seeing which way we are going is to track planet wide crop yields...Wheat, corn, etc etc... Oh and C02 at around 1000 to 2000 PPM makes crops healthy, happy and big ... hahahha

Thanks for taking the time to read...
youtu.be...

Anyone who repeatedly calls carbon dioxide "C02" as you have throughout the thread clearly doesn't know anything about the subject.

Read a book.

originally posted by: 727Sky


Clear cutting the rain forest and land destruction to build another parking lot is not thoughtful or desirable IMO but....when people are starving and have no way to get food they care about the "now" and not necessarily the "morrow".

That's correct, but surprisingly, as I suspect you may know, manipulation of stats and treatment of poor countries are very much in the same timeframe...not an area where many people like to go,

A Bjørn Lomborg quote;
"We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases; one in eight deaths stem from air pollution, mostly from cooking indoors with dung and twigs; and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food. We ought never to have entertained the notion that the world’s greatest challenge could be to reduce temperature rises in our generation by a fraction of a degree."

Another surprise there when he discovered that long term IPPCC forecasts read like this,

The IPCC says unmitigated climate change will cost 0.2-2% GDP/year in 2070.
The IPCC says climate policies in 2070 will cost more than 3.4% and likely much more.
So there you have a 'simple' projection that actually comes from the IPCC itself that is actually saying that, "the disease will cost a lot less than the cure" to also quote Lomborg.

Search under this title;

Global Warming’s Upside-Down Narrative - Project Syndicate.

What do you mean? I can't even comprehend your rebuttal because it doesn't make sense.
Carbon dioxide is CO2. en.m.wikipedia.org...
a reply to: Greven

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
What do you mean? I can't even comprehend your rebuttal because it doesn't make sense.
Carbon dioxide is CO2. en.m.wikipedia.org...
a reply to: Greven

Maybe the er, gentleman was talking about dropping the '2' down in size;

I just used the example from a quote, while the two is actually lower to the line of text, this usually is enough for most people.

CO2

Is Scientism not similar to religions?
Are they not both belief systems?

What's the difference between believing what NDG Tyson, Al Gore, or the NOAA tells you, and what a preist tells you?

What do you know, and what do you believe?

a reply to: 727Sky

You could be right. But my gut tells me that thousands of actual scientists have looked into this and still believe the earth (globe) is warming.

So should I believe you or NASA? I'm starting to think they were wrong about Gravity, Evolution and the moon landing too and the age of the earth.

a reply to: 727Sky

Global climate change is real. If you can't accept it, there is something deeply wrong with you. The earth is going through the 6th mass extinction and people just like you refuse to even accept the possibility that it is anthropogenic. You need help! Badly

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: 727Sky

Global climate change is real. If you can't accept it, there is something deeply wrong with you. The earth is going through the 6th mass extinction and people just like you refuse to even accept the possibility that it is anthropogenic. You need help! Badly

Maybe, but how do we know that we're in an extinction event?

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
What do you mean? I can't even comprehend your rebuttal because it doesn't make sense.
Carbon dioxide is CO2. en.m.wikipedia.org...
a reply to: Greven

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
What do you mean? I can't even comprehend your rebuttal because it doesn't make sense.
Carbon dioxide is CO2. en.m.wikipedia.org...
a reply to: Greven

Maybe the er, gentleman was talking about dropping the '2' down in size;

I just used the example from a quote, while the two is actually lower to the line of text, this usually is enough for most people.

CO2

Y'all need your eyes checked.

OP thinks CO2 (cee-oh-two) is written C02 (cee-zero-two):

originally posted by: 727Sky
Oh and C02 at around 1000 to 2000 PPM makes crops healthy, happy and big ... hahahha

originally posted by: 727Sky
C02 is not even one percent of earths atmosphere..

originally posted by: 727Sky
Reduce C02 below 350 PPM and watch what happens.. There have been times in earth's history the C02 was as high a 5000PPM and guess what Venus is still Venus and earth is still livable..

OP is ignorant of even the most basic of things.

originally posted by: Greven

Y'all need your eyes checked.

OP thinks CO2 (cee-oh-two) is written C02 (cee-zero-two):

Your rebuttal is based on a typo?

0h, well, I guess that settles it! Someone hit the wrong key!

OP is ignorant of even the most basic of things.

Really?

originally posted by: 727Sky
Oh and C02 at around 1000 to 2000 PPM makes crops healthy, happy and big ... hahahha

fifthseasongardening.com...

there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!

originally posted by: 727Sky
C02 is not even one percent of earths atmosphere..

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels average just above 400 ppmv, which is 0.04%. 0.04 < 1.

originally posted by: 727Sky
Reduce C02 below 350 PPM and watch what happens.. There have been times in earth's history the C02 was as high a 5000PPM and guess what Venus is still Venus and earth is still livable..

Retrieved from www.biocab.org...

Sounds like he was right on everything you just called wrong. Who is ignorant of the facts again?

TheRedneck

a reply to: amazing

Some of us have heard how the Arctic is warming... Go to 1:20 and look at the actual temps.... as in other things dealing with AGW it is B.S. Several other maps showing the temperatures but this is short and shows the ocean currents...youtu.be...


Pretty good graphic of the magnetic poles; where they have been and where they are now. youtu.be...


The solar system is moving and passing through all kinds of gas/magnetic fields.. Magnetic fields, cosmic rays...yes everything has to do with climate even what some consider almost empty space.. youtu.be...


A reply to richapau: Something like 99% of all creatures that have ever lived on earth are extinct; and most happened when people were not even a foot note in the history of the world.

Now, in defense of your obviously heart felt statement . We as a species can not destroy the habitat of the creatures and expect them to thrive. Habitat destruction along with food sources are the main contributing factor to die offs; you can even throw in disease for certain localized events .

A small body of water that has existed for years and years is an ecosystem teaming with life. The water is drained and "wallah" everything that depended on it source dies... Yep I said it and it is a small scale but still the habitat is destroyed along with everything that depended on it for survival..

An EMP, an impactor from far far away, or even a super volcano can change everyone's future on earth; and not for the well being of anything on earth IMO.. . If it really bothers you about the 6th extinction event then go save a bug ( or something else; maybe start a breeding program?) and make yourself feel better.. You are probably to busy though.... so it is easier just to tell others to do what you think needs to be done and get mad while you are at it....haha

P.S. As I had figured when posting this thread it would drift all over the place..... some have refused to even consider certain government agencies around the world are caught changing numbers to push an agenda; to show a warming trend of a few degrees when actually that is totally the result of fiddled/adjusted numbers .. That is the crux of this thread IMO ... Pretty simple.... yet it would seem some can not get their minds focused on that simple accusation and hands in the cookie jar fact.

Now, if we/earth is going cold or warm... You and I are not going to change the direction regardless of how much money is thrown or stolen for the problem... Let us just say it is complicated... the good news is the cold spell people swear by 2030 the full effect of global cooling will be felt leaving little doubt... The AGW people will continue making forecast which never seem to point to reality but hey they could get it right, maybe even tomorrow... How many forecast do they have to make that are totally wrong before people start to consider "something just ain't right" ?

So in closing (05:30 here so I am out the door) and to all those who took the time to ponder and wonder about adjusted temperature numbers by the very people and agencies who are tasked with reporting the facts and not some B.S. thank you all.

Data graphs senate fact finding...long but worth a watch for those who give a crap. youtu.be...

originally posted by: TheRedneck

originally posted by: Greven

Y'all need your eyes checked.

OP thinks CO2 (cee-oh-two) is written C02 (cee-zero-two):

Your rebuttal is based on a typo?

0h, well, I guess that settles it! Someone hit the wrong key!

OP is ignorant of even the most basic of things.

Really?

originally posted by: 727Sky
Oh and C02 at around 1000 to 2000 PPM makes crops healthy, happy and big ... hahahha

fifthseasongardening.com...

there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!

originally posted by: 727Sky
C02 is not even one percent of earths atmosphere..

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels average just above 400 ppmv, which is 0.04%. 0.04 < 1.

originally posted by: 727Sky
Reduce C02 below 350 PPM and watch what happens.. There have been times in earth's history the C02 was as high a 5000PPM and guess what Venus is still Venus and earth is still livable..

Retrieved from www.biocab.org...

Sounds like he was right on everything you just called wrong. Who is ignorant of the facts again?

TheRedneck

Hey Thanks .... I love you in a manly sort of way !! hahahah just a hand shake and hopefully no hugs in front of the Klingon's !!!

Some of this stuff is really not worth pointing out to people who refuse to look at history or actual events because their belief system clouds their judgement. Some authority figure says something and without checking and verifying sheep take it as gospel.. call it faith in a NWO leadership.. kinda like a really bad religion that wants money and a depopulation event.. If we are entering into a mini ice age then the depopulation event will become a reality IMO.

Anyway thank you again..