Do you believe in Global Warming?
- Thread starter Timm
- Start date
@StillHustlin
Is the dumbest tinfoil hat wearing faggot known to man.
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Related Articles
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.
One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
All science is based on "theory" until it is proven to be fact, which then the theory becomes factual, although scientific theory is already considered proven - we know, based on this topic alone, that is not the case, as global warming being man made or caused has not been factually proven. The theory that man is the cause of global warming cannot be proved through a so-called weather record that is roughly 12 decades when the planets existence and atmospheric existence is substantially greater than that. This is hard for humans to grasp with their super long lifespans of 80 years. Allegedly we have various ice ages dating to nearly a billion years ago. Man did not cause those to end and how they did relies on solely theory, not fact, as there is no recorded history. You're an archaeologist, correct? Has anyone in your field of expertise uncovered factual evidence of man causing global warming? The modern day scare is fear driven, with fear standing for false evidence appearing real. This is and always has been a plague to science.
Last edited:
Props:
S.L.A.B and S.L.A.B
Haha.
@StillHustlin
sitting in his moms basement watching youtube conspiracy theory videos. Let me guess 9/11 was an inside job and the Holocaust never happened either. LOLOLOLAMIRIGHT?!?!
@StillHustlin
sitting in his moms basement watching youtube conspiracy theory videos. Let me guess 9/11 was an inside job and the Holocaust never happened either. LOLOLOLAMIRIGHT?!?!
The Paris Climate Talks Will Emit 300,000 Tons of CO2, by Our Math. Hope It’s Worth It
------------------
no teleconferencing huh.... these so called leaders will clearly fix the "problem"
------------------
no teleconferencing huh.... these so called leaders will clearly fix the "problem"
Last edited:
Props:
GTS and GTS
@StillHustlin
's great city of the future!!I don't know about you guys, but I can't wait until the future is here for all of us to enjoy!
@StillHustlin
's great city of the future!!I don't know about you guys, but I can't wait until the future is here for all of us to enjoy!
If we are in agreement that pollution is bad for your health, and measures to slow global warming would also reduce pollution - then what is your issue with taking measures to reduce global warming?
With your objection as to the cause duly noted, it still seems like a very reasonable and beneficial means to an end.
It seems you are willing to destroy the earth just to win a dispute of what the source of the destruction is.
Props:
iaoish and iaoish