The Politics of Climate Change: How Data Is Being Manipulated To Fit A Theory

[JackRT]

This just in:

Sea Surface Temperature — NOAA Vindicated
Posted on January 7, 2017 | 1 Comment
Ever since NOAA released their latest update to sea surface temperature, version ER-SSTv4 (Extended Reconstruction Sea Surface Temperature version 4), it — and they — have been the target of vicious attack. It has come not just from climate denier bloggers, but from politicians like Lamar Smith (R-TX, chairman of the House committee on Science, Space, and Technology). The accusations haven’t been limited to error, rather they have focused on claims of outright fraud by NOAA scientists, saying, without any justification whatever, that the new version was an attempt to deceive, simply because it shows faster recent warming than other versions.

But new research has not only vindicated them, it establishes that their latest update shows every sign of being the best sea surface temperature data set yet. As in, the best.

Full article at Sea Surface Temperature — NOAA Vindicated

 

[AirPo]

I have a degree in math from Rutgers U., a masters in math from Central CT SU, & a masters in earth science, minor geology from Central CT SU.

You went from Rutgers to CT SU? You may want to ask for your money back!

 

[Always in His Presence]

This Blog article which was picked up by WAPO states that 2016 was the hottest ever on record. However, analysis of the actual raw data show a completely different story.

The U.S. Has Been Overwhelmingly Hot This Year

In all likelihood, the U.S. is going to have its second-hottest year on record, trailing only 2012. Every state is slated to have a top 10 warmest year and even at the city level, unrelenting warmth has been the main story in 2016.

However, another blog which presents data and charts from the raw data prove the above allegation false.

100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database.

Note how most of the made up data is in the last 15-20 years.

When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints.

1. They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data.
2. They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves.

Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data.

NOAA’s own documents show that the TOBS adjustment is small (0.3°F) and goes flat after 1990.

On a personal level, I live in a metro area of about 500,000 and we had one of the mildest summers on record...breaking several temp records. So far in Dec., we've also had colder than average temps. This is true for other parts of the country.

It's interesting because here in Tulsa, we just finished one of the mildest summers I can think of. We had very few days of 100 plus weather and so far this winter has been incredibly mild as well.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

How Data Is Being Manipulated To Fit A Theory

Why does this surprise anyone. Christians do the same with the word of GOD.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Even assuming that the money would be "wasted", I think any amount of money wasted is less a risk than destroying the planet as a place for humans to live. God only gave us one.

We are not GOD

His word says HE will destroy this world.

 

[JackRT]

How Data Is Being Manipulated To Fit A Theory

Why does this surprise anyone. Christians do the same with the word of GOD.

While I do agree with you, this is an entire other issue. However, every time climate scientists have been accused of manipulating data, independent investigation has proven the accusations untrue.

 

[JackRT]

We are not GOD

His word says HE will destroy this world.

However, we could quite possibly be the agency of that destruction just as the Romans destroyed the Temple or Cyrus helped the Jews re-establish themselves in Judea.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

However, we could quite possibly be the agency of that destruction just as the Romans destroyed the Temple or Cyrus helped the Jews re-establish themselves in Judea.

Not so, HE said it will be destroyed by fire. Ever try burning up an ocean, we can not do that but HE can.

 

[expos4ever]

We are not GOD

His word says HE will destroy this world.

Disagree. I suggest the overall picture is one of reclamation and restoration, not destruction.

 

[JackRT]

Not so, HE said it will be destroyed by fire. Ever try burning up an ocean, we can not do that but HE can.

A full scale nuclear war or run away global warming both are pretty hot.

 

[pat34lee]

I say this, not as a climate scientist, but as someone with a PhD in geology and 20+ years as a research chemist. The science looks pretty solid to me. Am I a fool and being "led astray" or are the people with zero science background who rely on fringe blogs that are usually debunked quickly and easily being led astray?

Which of us is more statistically likely to be backing the wrong horse?

Sorry, but geology and chemistry? Those fields are about as applicable to climate change as a master mechanic.

 

[pat34lee]

Mathematical proof that man-made climate change is a total hoax
Mathematical proof that man-made climate change is a total hoax

 

[Gene2memE]

Mathematical proof that man-made climate change is a total hoax
Mathematical proof that man-made climate change is a total hoax

NaturalNews
Infowars
Mike Adams
Christopher Monckton
ClimateScienceNews.com
The New American
CWC Labs
Dr. Roy Spencer

 

[rambot]

Mathematical proof that man-made climate change is a total hoax
Mathematical proof that man-made climate change is a total hoax

Good stuff! It "seems logical" that a few thousand climate scientists all made the exact same mistake on all 150,000 of the agw climate debate papers they have submitted for review! And its only been caught by this one crack team of...

Its distressing that people could actually think that agw could/would be disproven as simply as that. How ignorant of the amount of research that has been done..... Staggering

 

[pat34lee]

Good stuff! It "seems logical" that a few thousand climate scientists all made the exact same mistake on all 150,000 of the agw climate debate papers they have submitted for review! And its only been caught by this one crack team of...

Its distressing that people could actually think that agw could/would be disproven as simply as that. How ignorant of the amount of research that has been done..... Staggering

Ever done research? Each new group doesn't go over everything the last guys did. They take for granted that group A did their job correctly, and move on from there. The problem is when the first group makes mistakes or fudges the numbers. And it seems to happen fairly often. This doesn't even cover making up numbers for political reasons.
1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Here's the reality that nobody seems to want to touch on...

While the republican position on climate change might be thinly veiled under the fake premise of "we don't want to waste taxpayer dollars", or scientific skepticism about the data... the reality is, for many of that ilk, it's based on religious reasons (those you have to do some prying to get that out of them), or reasons of them merely wanting to oppose progressives.

According to the climate change experts, we have the capability to end human life on earth with our action (or inaction) on the matter...since that's not an outcome described in the bible, many conservative Christians believe that it can't be real and therefore must be some sort of scam by the liberals to undermine biblical teachings.

The "we don't want to waste taxpayer dollars" reasoning falls apart the moment you realize that the same folks are in favor of spending $800 billion on the military budget.

The scientific skepticism argument doesn't hold water many of those folks willingly accept other scientific principles that have a weaker consensus than the consensus on climate change (which for the record, is as strong as the scientific consensus that cigarette smoking is a risk factor for lung disease)...yet, I don't see this same group of republicans claiming that "the lung cancer studies are just a hoax by the liberals to hurt the tobacco industry...there's nothing wrong with smoking!"...nor do I see them claiming that the ADA's "4 out of 5 dentists" statistic is a scam to subsidize the toothpaste industry...

There are two main reasons why people reject climate change
1) Religious reasons
2) The progressives are the ones who've taken up this cause, therefore they feel the need to oppose it

If a republican had started spearheading this cause instead of Al Gore, this conversation wouldn't even be happening right now.

Now, I should clarify...there might be a few people out there are are legitimately skeptical about certain things and has questions...to which I say, there's plenty of data out there, have at it...call me when you're done reading. However, for the lion's share of the opposition, their reasons are very transparent and I'd have more respect for them if they were just up front and honest about their true reasons.

 

[rjs330]

Here's the reality that nobody seems to want to touch on...

While the republican position on climate change might be thinly veiled under the fake premise of "we don't want to waste taxpayer dollars", or scientific skepticism about the data... the reality is, for many of that ilk, it's based on religious reasons (those you have to do some prying to get that out of them), or reasons of them merely wanting to oppose progressives.

According to the climate change experts, we have the capability to end human life on earth with our action (or inaction) on the matter...since that's not an outcome described in the bible, many conservative Christians believe that it can't be real and therefore must be some sort of scam by the liberals to undermine biblical teachings.

The "we don't want to waste taxpayer dollars" reasoning falls apart the moment you realize that the same folks are in favor of spending $800 billion on the military budget.

The scientific skepticism argument doesn't hold water many of those folks willingly accept other scientific principles that have a weaker consensus than the consensus on climate change (which for the record, is as strong as the scientific consensus that cigarette smoking is a risk factor for lung disease)...yet, I don't see this same group of republicans claiming that "the lung cancer studies are just a hoax by the liberals to hurt the tobacco industry...there's nothing wrong with smoking!"...nor do I see them claiming that the ADA's "4 out of 5 dentists" statistic is a scam to subsidize the toothpaste industry...

There are two main reasons why people reject climate change
1) Religious reasons
2) The progressives are the ones who've taken up this cause, therefore they feel the need to oppose it

If a republican had started spearheading this cause instead of Al Gore, this conversation wouldn't even be happening right now.

Now, I should clarify...there might be a few people out there are are legitimately skeptical about certain things and has questions...to which I say, there's plenty of data out there, have at it...call me when you're done reading. However, for the lion's share of the opposition, their reasons are very transparent and I'd have more respect for them if they were just up front and honest about their true reasons.

That incorrect. The accusal that Religous reasons for opposing this are hokum. Even the science that proclaims this admits little to nothing can be done in time. Yet they want to plow ahead anyway with funneling money by taking from the rich countries and giving g to the poor. Thus controlling people. What what we should be focusing on is how to deal with it when and if it comes. Because if it does come we can't stop it because it's natural. We need to focus on what's real. Nature is changing.

Religion is absent from the equation. Climate change is real it's natural and it's not guaranteed to be caused by man. Religion is not involved.

 

[bobo_mcpherson]

That incorrect. The accusal that Religous reasons for opposing this are hokum. Even the science that proclaims this admits little to nothing can be done in time. Yet they want to plow ahead anyway with funneling money by taking from the rich countries and giving g to the poor. Thus controlling people. What what we should be focusing on is how to deal with it when and if it comes. Because if it does come we can't stop it because it's natural. We need to focus on what's real. Nature is changing.

You seem to like to make decrees about the science but you seldom seem to actually discuss the science. You DO realize, correct, that you cannot explain the last 50 years worth of temperature increase using only NATURAL FORCINGS ALONE, right?

Now, I know that minute I present some actual SCIENCE you'll stop talking to me, but just in case anyone on here is interested in what SCIENCE looks like here's a comparison of the curve fitting using ONLY NATURAL FORCINGS and ONLY HUMAN-INDUCED FORCINGS and the two together.

Can you identify which data set best explains the recent increase in temperature?

From here: IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001

So, go ahead, ignore the science it is inconvenient for your claims that it is all natural. Sorry.

 

[JackRT]

I don't see this same group of republicans claiming that "the lung cancer studies are just a hoax by the liberals to hurt the tobacco industry...there's nothing wrong with smoking!"...

That argument was actually used for decades!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That incorrect. The accusal that Religous reasons for opposing this are hokum.

No it's not...just because it's not your personal reason for opposing it doesn't mean that your opinion is the "official" dissenting opinion on the topic of climate change.

Even the science that proclaims this admits little to nothing can be done in time.

That's not true, there is conflict within the scientific community on this portion of the debate.

Yet they want to plow ahead anyway with funneling money by taking from the rich countries and giving g to the poor.

...again, that's only certain people pushing for that, others are simply targeting things that can be done domestically.

What what we should be focusing on is how to deal with it when and if it comes.

Religion is absent from the equation. Climate change is real it's natural and it's not guaranteed to be caused by man. Religion is not involved.

Again, it doesn't sound like you're the type of person my post was addressing.

There are literally people who say that climate change is not real, and they'll cite random one-off scientists, and literally suggest that the entire premise is a hoax.

...and I hate to say it, but in the "don't subscribe to climate change" community, there are a lot more of them than there are of you.