Global warming

[skimagic]

Why would they deceive the public against big money and the publics best interest.

Exactly! So the worldwide deception has been going on since the 1980's?

 

[BenedictGomez]

Why would they deceive the public against big money and the publics best interest.

 

[wtcobb]

If the Daily Mail wrote it, it must be true*

 

[benski]

I see you have given up.

 

[kartski]

As long as you're not using it as a cite for a Wikipedia Entry. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t..._a_welcome_rebuke_to_terrible_journalism.html

 

[wtcobb]

As long as you're not using it as a cite for a Wikipedia Entry. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t..._a_welcome_rebuke_to_terrible_journalism.html

... and cross-reference with National Enquirer. :lol:

 

[Domeskier]

Why would they deceive the public against big money and the publics best interest.

I can't get myself too worked up about global warming when the planet will be consumed by the sun eventually anyway, but I have spent enough time around academics to know that big money and the public good are not particularly high on their list of priorities. If they really care about the future of the human race, maybe they should start falsifying data to promote research into interstellar travel.

 

[Abubob]

My biggest problem with the climate change debate is the debate itself. So many sources stating contradictory evidence to the cause that are impossible to verify make it nigh on impossible to make an impartial decision.

 

[jack97]

No surprise to me that coverage of NOAA's adjustment is split on (political) party line. Media coverage in recent years have been reporting to extreme ends of the spectrum.

BTW, for those who want to dig in some more, NOAA's paper written by Karl et al was to show with "proper" adjustments, the temperature pause does not exist. However the MET office (UK climate group) begs to differ, their records shows the pause is still there and are looking for natural causes. More telling is that some US media outlets do not even report that other climate/meteorological agencies outside of the US have differences of opinion.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/variations-rate-global-warming

 

[benski]

I can't get myself too worked up about global warming when the planet will be consumed by the sun eventually anyway, but I have spent enough time around academics to know that big money and the public good are not particularly high on their list of priorities. If they really care about the future of the human race, maybe they should start falsifying data to promote research into interstellar travel.

Point is without a profit/power motive its why would one try to deceive the public.

 

[Domeskier]

Point is without a profit/power motive its why would one try to deceive the public.

Usually when researchers falsify data they are looking for a promotion or recognition from their peers. I presume in a lot of instances that they really believe that their conclusions are true so there's no real harm in fudging data to support them. Other times there might be pressure from bosses to get the results they want. Very rarely do people lie and cheat to from wholly altruistic motives.

 

[jack97]

Point is without a profit/power motive its why would one try to deceive the public.

Climate research has become big business, for 2014 US tax payers spent over 37 billion dollars in this field. NOAA could and has played a big role in this endeavor.

http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

 

[JimG.]

I can't get myself too worked up about global warming when the planet will be consumed by the sun eventually anyway

Eventually yes but humans will be long gone before then, probably the result of a massive meteor or comet strike. A good sized meteor passed by Earth closer than the moon a few weeks ago.

Silly humans, many of us think we are going to be here forever.

 

[benski]

Climate research has become big business, for 2014 US tax payers spent over 37 billion dollars in this field. NOAA could and has played a big role in this endeavor.

http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

So 2 billion is for climate research. So what. you think the government is saying we will only give you money if you fallow our narrative. Again who is loosing money/power over climate change. NOAA is not going away becouse of climate change. Do you think this is just some porkbarrel spending by the government. And what about all the tenured climate scientists.

 

[Edd]

I can't get myself too worked up about global warming when the planet will be consumed by the sun eventually anyway

That's like saying I can't be bothered to pay the bill that's due on Friday because I'll be dead in 70 years.

 

[Rowsdower]

Just so everyone understands how science works: if you don't agree with the current theory on climate change, you need to offer a better one that more accurately explains all the observed data collected to date. Right now our best explanation is anthropogenic climate change. If you don't like that, you're free to offer up a better theory that explains the observed warming trends.

Conspiracy theories about how the scientific community operates cease to be serious discussion if the theorists can't come up with anything better.

 

[jack97]

So 2 billion is for climate research. So what. you think the government is saying we will only give you money if you fallow our narrative. Again who is loosing money/power over climate change. NOAA is not going away becouse of climate change. Do you think this is just some porkbarrel spending by the government. And what about all the tenured climate scientists.

NOAA is a NGO, its budget for 2016 is 5.7 billion. The bigger business that the previous administration was aiming for was the Paris agreement. The estimated cost over the life of the agreement is ~ trillion for US taxpayer, roughly 46 to 176 billion per year.

And yes, climate change is not going away.... it been going on way before we became the dominant species on this planet.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060042242

 

[Rogman]

Riggggggghhhhhhtttttt............ Whelp...... someone is definitely being "misled" alright, but it's not the people who question the validity of man-made Global Warming, it's you.

These "climate scientist's" frauds should be punished with criminal investigations.



February 5, 2017 - How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.... NOAA report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

You actually cited the Daily Mail as a source?

 

[jack97]

Just so everyone understands how science works: if you don't agree with the current theory on climate change, you need to offer a better one that more accurately explains all the observed data collected to date. Right now our best explanation is anthropogenic climate change. If you don't like that, you're free to offer up a better theory that explains the observed warming trends.

Conspiracy theories about how the scientific community operates cease to be serious discussion if the theorists can't come up with anything better.

AGW doesn't even pass the most basic scientific observations.....

 

[bdfreetuna]

Just so everyone understands how science works: if you don't agree with the current theory on climate change, you need to offer a better one that more accurately explains all the observed data collected to date. Right now our best explanation is anthropogenic climate change. If you don't like that, you're free to offer up a better theory that explains the observed warming trends.

Conspiracy theories about how the scientific community operates cease to be serious discussion if the theorists can't come up with anything better.

Winter is still winter and summer is still summer. Sometimes it rains more than others. Sometimes you get tornados and hurricanes. Humans don't have much effect on this.

How's that for a conspiracy theory :lol: