World leaders duped manipulates global warming data
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
Now your are so deranged and irrational you are arguing against science published in Nature.That alone is enough to confirm its probably HORSESHIT!!!
What I am telling you is that the study measured the effect and found it exactly matched the prediction proving the global warming hypothesis correct.So you are telling me that the graph on your link,... essentially confirms that the globe's temp. virtually moves in lock step with the co2 level in the atmosphere.
I guess these "scientists" were never taught anything about inertia,...???
And per your science,... spring happens at the same time for the whole globe,...???
These self proclaimed "experts" can't help but make themselves look like untouchables.
FAST
And they are not self proclaimed experts. The most prestigious journal in science has proclaimed their expertise.
As expected, the story and David Rose are bullshit.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XlWgDL48
BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures
By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
http://mediamatters.org/research/20...ht-wing-assault-climate-change-science/215257
Sure fuji,...with statements like this,..."They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions",...they are absolutely creditable,...a fricken joke.What I am telling you is that the study measured the effect and found it exactly matched the prediction proving the global warming hypothesis correct.
And they are not self proclaimed experts. The most prestigious journal in science has proclaimed their expertise.
Using terms like,..."exactly" when dealing with the globes atmosphere,...just confirms that they actually think they are pulling the wool over everybody's eyes and getting away with it.
Clubs like these know that the hand writing is on the wall,...so they better get as much bull shit out there while they still can.
FAST
Oh,...for a minute there,... I though you were going to call me a racist.Keep calling a study published in the most respected scientific journal in the world "a fricken joke". It makes the crazy shit you spew easier to ignore.
Do we believe the peer reviewers at Nature? Or FAST?
Not a hard choice..
So I guess this means you don't have any intelligent comments in reply to my points in post #25,...and took the easy way out,...expected though.
FAST
You're wasting your time. Fuji doesn't actually understand that Nature paper that he likes to reference. In fact, he's publicly admitted he's never even read it.Ok then explain me why a top NOAA whistle blower say it manuipulated.
As for the Karl paper that replaced good data with bad data, that bad data is used by both NOAA and NASA. As I said at the time, it's the climate equivalent of "Enron-style accounting."
And I just love how -- once again -- the data have gone missing, so there's no way to determine if the results can be duplicated. Talk about "anti-science."
And I just love how -- once again -- the data have gone missing, so there's no way to determine if the results can be duplicated. Talk about "anti-science."
Sure I have an intelligent comment, here it is: you don't know what you are talking about. I trust the peer reviewers at Nature, not you. You are not a good judge OS what is or isn't good science. They are.Oh,...for a minute there,... I though you were going to call me a racist.
So I guess this means you don't have any intelligent comments in reply to my points in post #25,...and took the easy way out,...expected though.
FAST
None responsive fuji,...but at least you didn't call me a racist, for disagreeing with you.Sure I have an intelligent comment, here it is: you don't know what you are talking about. I trust the peer reviewers at Nature, not you. You are not a good judge OS what is or isn't good science. They are.
Here's another gem from your experts link that you won't comment on,... "Then we controlled for other factors that would impact our measurements, such as a weather system moving through the area,” says Feldman."
Of coarse we all know what is meant by NOAA when they state things like,... "we controlled",...and "adjusted",...but they know "EXACTLY" whats going on in the globes atmosphere.
Also looks like plant-based photosynthetic activity,... has just as much effect on temps, as co2 levels,...strange that.
FAST
Once again a fuji non responsive reply,...nothing unusual,...and how gutless you are by not quoting my post in your none response again.Again: Nature's peer reviewers vs. FAST.
FAST loses.
And still with your silly,..."reviewed by its peers",...do you realise how simple minded that makes you look,...???
I have NEVER lost to you,...never will.
FAST
And still no one will believe you over the peer reviewers at Nature.Once again a fuji non responsive reply,...nothing unusual,...and how gutless you are by not quoting my post in your none response again.
And still with your silly,..."reviewed by its peers",...do you realise how simple minded that makes you look,...???
I have NEVER lost to you,...never will.
FAST
Given your history of quoting articles that said the opposite of what you claimed they said, this statement is unbelievable.You're wasting your time. Fuji doesn't actually understand that Nature paper that he likes to reference. In fact, he's publicly admitted he's never even read it.
And here are the words of your 'top NOAA whistle blower':
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5...warming-study-again-questioned-again-defendedBates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
Once again, you're pushing fake stories.
I give a shit who you "believe",...I on the other hand bring up questions regarding the subject,...and you do the usual fuji dance, and run away while yelling peer reviewers over and over again.And still no one will believe you over the peer reviewers at Nature.
Real depth there Fuji.
FAST
Let's be clear: NOBODY thinks you are more of an expert than the peer reviewers at Nature. You are making a complete fool of yourself. Your posts in this thread are stunning in their stupidity.I give a shit who you "believe",...I on the other hand bring up questions regarding the subject,...and you do the usual fuji dance, and run away while yelling peer reviewers over and over again.
Real depth there Fuji.
FAST
Fuji, my man, a bit of wisdom someone gave me a long time ago. Q: Why is arguing with a _______ like wrestling with a pig? A: Because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. You can fill in the blanks, but the same folks who deny climate science read the National Enquirer and believe Elvis is still alive somewhere. Nothing you can say will change their minds because they BELIEVE in Elvis. So do I, but the dead one...
LMFAO!Given your history of quoting articles that said the opposite of what you claimed they said, this statement is unbelievable.
And here are the words of your 'top NOAA whistle blower'
If you want to revisit history, let's look at your record on this exact issue. In July 2015, you defended NOAA's actions. Then -- four months later -- you revealed that you had no idea that sea surface temperatures are part of NOAA's and NASA's calculations (the main part, in fact) of global temperature anomalies: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411862&viewfull=1#post5411862
In plain English, for those who don't follow this stuff: Frankfooter confirmed on Nov. 29, 2015, that he doesn't know anything about this matter and is totally full of shit.
And that continues to this day.
The issue isn't "data tampering." The issue is the replacement of a methodology with a new methodology that is horribly flawed. That means good data was replaced with bad data.
The bad data wasn't "tampered with," as incredibly biased reporter Seth Borenstein noted. But it is bad data, all the same. The "Enron-style accounting" comparison stands.
A quick reminder -- the peer reviewers at Nature published a paper a year ago that showed Karl's 2015 paper for the NOAA was total horseshit.
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414
