Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#6,703
#6,703
BartW said:
Criminalize? I'm pretty sure it's already illegal to deceive one's investors
Click to expand...

A couple points:

1. We'll see if illegal deception occurred. I'm guessing this is about finding a way to punish Big Oil and if they can hang this on them so be it.

2. If we truly are concerned about energy companies, what they knew and what they told investors then surely Big Wind and Big Solar should be similarly investigated no?

That's what I mean by criminalizing - using the criminal justice system to punish political opponents.

It's all fine so long as they are going after the "right" companies...
 
#6,705
#6,705
Stats Tampering Puts NOAA in Hot Water

From the article:

"NOAA’s adjustments to previous ocean temperatures between 1998 and 2012 made recent global temperature changes appear more than twice warmer than the original records showed."

"This was accomplished by throwing out global-coverage satellite-sensed sea surface measurements taken since the late 1970s — the best data available — and upwardly adjusting spotty and unreliable hit-and-miss temperature readings taken from ocean-going vessels which present well-recognized problems."

In addition to tweaking recent temperature readings to be higher, NOAA’s revisions to earlier original data have consistently made past temps cooler.

As climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts observe on the same WUWT blog site, “To manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward” to show even more recent warming.

Poor Bart. Whats he going to do now? :eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,706
#6,706
bigorangetrain said:
stats tampering puts noaa in hot water

from the article:

"noaa’s adjustments to previous ocean temperatures between 1998 and 2012 made recent global temperature changes appear more than twice warmer than the original records showed."

"this was accomplished by throwing out global-coverage satellite-sensed sea surface measurements taken since the late 1970s — the best data available — and upwardly adjusting spotty and unreliable hit-and-miss temperature readings taken from ocean-going vessels which present well-recognized problems."

in addition to tweaking recent temperature readings to be higher, noaa’s revisions to earlier original data have consistently made past temps cooler.

as climate expert bob tisdale and meteorologist anthony watts observe on the same wuwt blog site, “to manufacture warming during the hiatus, noaa adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward” to show even more recent warming.

Poor bart. Whats he going to do now? :eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol:
Click to expand...

It's a conspiracy!
 
#6,710
#6,710
volinbham said:
A couple points:

1. We'll see if illegal deception occurred. I'm guessing this is about finding a way to punish Big Oil and if they can hang this on them so be it.

2. If we truly are concerned about energy companies, what they knew and what they told investors then surely Big Wind and Big Solar should be similarly investigated no?

That's what I mean by criminalizing - using the criminal justice system to punish political opponents.

It's all fine so long as they are going after the "right" companies...
Click to expand...
Tobacco companies made that same argument…

Why do you think “Big Wind” and “Big Solar” should be investigated? Did someone leak documents showing they’ve known global warming is a hoax all along, yet decided to mislead investors by preaching the “truth” about climate science? If so, yes, the S.E.C. should do its job.
volinbham said:
Curious that you never turn this view inward.
Click to expand...
I’ve plainly stated that this is an example of a real conspiracy. Nobody seems to pick up on that irony :)

Like the paper says, though, there are historical examples of real conspiracies. And as the paper shows, really big conspiracies are doomed to fail. The climate denial campaign has experienced both intrinsic and extrinsic failure already. I don’t know whether it is illegal or just shady af. We’ll see if any of the bad actors are ever held accountable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,714
#6,714
BartW said:
Tobacco companies made that same argument…

Why do you think “Big Wind” and “Big Solar” should be investigated? Did someone leak documents showing they’ve known global warming is a hoax all along, yet decided to mislead investors by preaching the “truth” about climate science? If so, yes, the S.E.C. should do its job.

I’ve plainly stated that this is an example of a real conspiracy. Nobody seems to pick up on that irony :)

Like the paper says, though, there are historical examples of real conspiracies. And as the paper shows, really big conspiracies are doomed to fail. The climate denial campaign has experienced both intrinsic and extrinsic failure already. I don’t know whether it is illegal or just shady af. We’ll see if any of the bad actors are ever held accountable.
Click to expand...

You truly do live in the land of Oz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,717
#6,717
Sandvol said:
You do realize El Nino is a natural event.
Click to expand...

Pfft that's conspiracy talk right there Sandvol. You know that we humans are the sole cause of El Nino. These type of weather events never occurred before humans walked the Earth. We know this because we were able to observe the weather patterns billions of years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,721
#6,721
Sandvol said:
Supreme Court blocks Obama’s carbon-emissions rules - MarketWatch
Click to expand...
Hillary’s hit squad strikes again! My, how a couple of days changes things…

To be clear (for those who don’t read), the SCOTUS did not strike down Obama’s power plant regulations. The court didn’t rule on the content of those regulations at all. They just issued a stay and sent it back to a lower court, which is expected to rule favorably. The case will reach the SCOTUS again. Obama’s administration expected as much. Even before Scalia’s passing, though, it seemed likely that the supreme court would uphold the climate rules. It was in fact their rulings in previous years which paved the way for these new regulations under the Clean Air Act. That's why even a stay was unexpected.

So what now? If Republicans block any Obama nomination then a 4-4 tie will uphold the lower court's decision on his climate rules. If they don’t block the nomination it should be 5-4 in favor. If they do block Obama’s guy, Hillary could pick a far left-winger and it will definitely be 5-4 in favor.

But even if/when SCOTUS approves the rule, the next president could undo them. So in essence nothing has really changed. The future of our climate policy still depends on who we elect this year.
 
#6,722
#6,722
golfballs said:
Climate Models Botch Another Prediction | RealClearScience
Click to expand...
Can’t believe I sifted through all that crap to find this ‘new botched prediction’
Models told us that the years of 1998-2013 were supposed to show ever-increasing runaway warming. And yet, these years actually exhibited the famous "global warming hiatus." An article published in Nature says that zero models predicted this.
Numerous modelers have told us that the Arctic polar ice would be completely gone by now. It's still there. Many models now seem to skew in the opposite direction, predicting more ice than we see today
Click to expand...
First of all, these claims aren't new. Secondly, these claims are not supported by the author’s links. Take a look. Then, starting your “hiatus” dates on a massive El Nino year and ending it just before the next one is such obvious cherrypicking. One could pick several such hiatuses in the historical temperature record despite its warming trend. And finally, temperatures and arctic ice extent are well within IPCC projections. If anything arctic ice loss is occurring faster than IPCC projections.

By the way, January just set another record for hottest month and arctic sea ice is at a record low for this time of year. Poor timing on that hit piece...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,723
#6,723
Monkey business: Gorilla's message about global warming was staged

:eek:hmy:

The video, shown at December’s Paris climate change conference, shows Koko use sign language to say things like “I am gorilla, I am flowers, animals, I am nature… Man Koko love… but man… man stupid… Koko cry, time hurry, fix Earth…”

The video was produced by a French environmental group and the gorilla Foundation, which cares for Koko the gorilla and notes on its website that the video was produced “with a script” and “edited from a number of separate takes, for brevity and continuity.”


But animal experts agree that climate change is way beyond the understanding of gorillas.

“A complex phenomenon like climate change is not understood by many humans, let alone an ape,” Sally Boysen, an Ohio State University psychology professor, told FoxNews.com.
Click to expand...

zing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,725
#6,725
Top MIT Climate Scientist Trashes ‘97% Consensus’ Claim | The Daily Caller

Lindzen if referring to the often cited statistic among environmentalists and liberal politicians that 97 percent of climate scientists agree human activities are causing the planet to warm. This sort of argument has been around for decades, but recent use of the statistic can be traced to a 2013 report by Australian researcher John Cook.

Cook’s paper found of the scientific study “abstracts expressing a position on [manmade global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” But Cook’s assertion has been heavily criticized by researchers carefully examining his methodology.

A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education found only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.

A 2013 study by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that Cook had to cast a wide net to cram scientists into his so-called consensus. To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.
Click to expand...
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top