My Photo

April 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

BlogStats


« Scattershots – 2feb2017 (updated 5feb17)) | Main | Sandbox - 6feb17 »

05 February 2017

Comments

Walt

I can't wait for the news of just who will get FED grant moneys cut off. Billions if not Trillions have been handed out for this farce.
Too bad Ca. and CARB who have used the bullshit data to pass laws and force us to by "special" cars, trucks and equipment at huge extra cost, won't budge a bit. Gov. Moonbat has already declared war, and will continue to believe the junk science.
Moonbat even wants Ca. to launch its own AGW satellite. Yet he didn't say just how that would be paid for.

Gregory

The true believers in climate catastrophe won't be convinced until there is a confirmed cooling, though this latest kerfuffle should give skeptics more shelter.

There are multiple strong indications of waning solar cycles and tropospheric temps declining... natural variations still appear to be dominant and the sun remains dominant.

Bill Tozer

Drain the Swamp.

Russ

UK Daily Mail picked up the story, where is the US Media?

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming

It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change

America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules

The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Russ

Steven Green: "But remember that if world leaders were duped, it’s because they’re willing dupes — nothing gets their attention faster than a drummed up crisis they can use to increase their money and power."

Gregory

Bad data? What bad data?

Wow, what a great superbowl game!

The wagons are circled with both the NOAA and NASA-GISS climate centers thought to be on the Trump administration chopping block. Don't expect any bad news to be well covered by their journalist lickspittles who are aghast at the barbarians streaming past the gates.

George Rebane

Steven Green's recent memory jog has been reported here for years. Only the new comers to politics, history, and our current state of affairs are naive enough to believe that in the public forum political leaders deal objectively with 'crises', everyone of which is a new opportunity for some faction.

Please note that no one on the Left has dared counter this latest climate change fraud for the simple reasons that 1) they have no factual basis to do so, and 2) bringing greater attention to this latest corruption of climate science is the last thing globalists want to do. So mum's the word.

Gregory

"If only the king knew!"

The duped world leaders are the ones who have been buying the research that showed the necessity of directing energy companies. Of course, the king knew!

Todd Juvinall

Paul Emery, Rassmusen has Trump on the rise today! Those darn polls.

Todd Juvinall

Here is a link to a CBS poll from Rasmussen today that shows the bias in who these schlubs pick. And in this one it is just "adults". I see how PE can be fooled.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-sharply-divided-along-partisan-lines-over-travel-ban-trump-cbs-news-poll/

George Rebane

ToddJ 917am - What does your comment have to do with this post?

Todd Juvinall

Pre strike on Emery. LOL!

George Rebane

Then off to the fresh sandbox with ye, Mr Juvinall!

Robert Cross

I can find no coverage of this anywhere except in the links you provided. I would think this would be a headline. Hmmm Let's see. Oilmen and bankers with large investments in pipelines (including trump) now running the gov't…. a gag order on agencies involved with climate research.. and now this.. perhaps a disgruntled employee..Perhaps he was paid by the Koch bros. to say this.. Methinks alternative facts may be involved. Oh yeah, I forgot.. The billionaire owned media has a liberal bias (an alternative face in and of itself.) and isn't reporting it. Please explain, if you can, why this "revelation" is not the top story of every news outlet in America, if in (alternate) fact it debunks climate change.

George Rebane

RobertC 137pm - You miss the point. I have given a plausible explanation to this omission and a legion of others over the years. Books have been written on the biased coverage of climate change and total silence on refuting the science behind it. No proponent will stand on in a public forum to debate the science of it with a skeptical scientist. For example here I've given ample evidence of the IPCC's own admission as to the paucity of the general circulation models; there has been no response from my readers nor has there been any defense of them in the global forum. All you and yours can parrot is 'Consensus science!' What say you?

Walt

NOAA is in hot water.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/noaa-to-review-allegations-that-scientists-manipulated-global-warming-research/
Those of us here know this is old news. Many of us have posted such evidence over the months as it tricked out.
First it was LIBS computers that "crashed" to hide the crime, now NOAA pulls the same trick?
"Bates documented potential flaws with the study, referred to as the Karl study after lead author Tom Karl, and pointed out it had not been archived in accordance with NOAA policy. On top of that, the computer used to process the software used by the Karl study crashed.

“I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated,” Bates wrote on the blog Climate Etc."

And the unholy church of East Anglia deleted data so their BS could not be made public. Recall those days?

Now NOAA and NASA have been found to be dirty.

Gregory

GR 156pm

That wasn't always true... Gavin Schmidt, then #2 at the NASA-GISS climate center under the father of alarmism, James Hansen (since retired) actually participated in that very public IntelligenceSquared debate of the question, global warming is not a crisis. I apologize for the repetition, but it's been at least a few days...


The moderator of that formal debate was PBS' Jim Lehrer, original co-host of the now MacNeil-less and Lehrer-less PBS News Hour. It was carried on PBS and NPR. They wanted everyone to see a triumph of climate science consensus.

You may remember Schmidt got creamed... the opposition, author Dr. Michael Crichton, MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Phillip Stott cleaned his clock, turning a liberal Manhattan audience from AGW believers into a majority of skeptics. Since then, Schmidt has refused to appear with skeptics (like the UAH's Dr. Roy Spencer) so as to not give them any unearned gravitas.

Or it might be because his arguments are losers if an informed scientist with "alternative facts" is allowed equal time. Alternative facts are not necessarily false... all it takes is for both sides to assert truth is when the warmistas are lying by omission, which is their usual MO.

George Rebane

Gregory 1048am - Yes, I do remember that 'encounter', and I should have referred to its aftermath when no global warmist wanted to contend in a public forum after that pummeling. Thanks for reminding us.

Gregory

George, I'm sitting waiting for the fireworks to start... Schmidt (now in Hansen's chair as director of Nasa's climate cabal, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which by some twist of fate has eschewed space sensing (the UAH and RSS datasets conflict with the 'adjusted' terrestrial datasets favored by Schmidt and friends at GISS and at Gavin's website, the wretchedly misnamed realclimate) and space studies, focusing on earth surface temperatures and getting their gistemp dataset to match what they just *know* to be real... the models temperature predictions which are from two to three times the rate of warming shown by weather balloon and satellite temperature measures.

Handy Science Hint: trust, but verify. That the satellite measurements as interpreted both by Christy at UAH and Remote Sensing Systems track nicely the measurements made the old fashioned 20th Century way... releasing a balloon with simple instruments with a transmitter... really does validate the satellite datasets... but gistemp doesn't.

You also can't validate the model runs by noting how they match past temperatures very well* indeed... because the models have been tuned to match past temps. Now, if the models actually did a good job of modeling the earth's climate, the tuning would have a good chance of improving their performance but the fact that they keep getting the future wrong is a strong indication the models got it wrong.

*a so called Australian physicist actually descended into blithering scientific idiocy for praising the models' ability to 'predict the past', while ignoring the obvious they were tuned to match the past. As the late celebrated John von Neumann was reported to say, "with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk". It's fitting that Enrico Fermi (note to the unwashed, Fermi was one of the greatest 20th century physicists) related that to Freeman Dyson years ago when Dyson was overly enamored of his own models matching reality and Fermi gave him a lesson we should all remember. Here's Dyson's own words... http://www.up.ac.za/media/shared/537/ZP_Files/fit_an_elephant.zp53864.pdf

A young Dyson forced to instead listen to a Hansen or a Schmidt would have wasted his career and mislead the world.

Gregory

Forgot to finish what my first sentence was trying to start... Schmidt warned Trump not to touch Schmidt's budget for NASA-GISS' climate work. Will Trump cower, not wishing to incur Gavin's wrath?

Last call for bets. I'll bet a'gin Gavin on this one.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad