New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate Change Data

Since you did not read my post, I will just assume that you did not agree with the outcome and just will summarize it however you please. Keep living in your bubble, the world is a much happier place with you there.

 

No reason to decrease pollution if it doesn't affect the climate. It is not like we need clean water or air. I am guessing climate deniers will also deny that heavily polluted areas have higher rates of asthma. They are the new age tobacco deniers. They believed the tobacco companies research refuting that smoking causes cancer.

 

So how many scientist would that be who are charlatans? Only the scientists at NOAA? How about East Angelia? the BOM Australia? The BOM JApan?

I know - perhaps it is the contributing authors and authors of the cited papers in the IPCC assessment reports?

 

And if thier insurance premiums rise because we have not actioned climate change??

 

Cola or UnCola?

 

How many of the 200 countries rely on the NOAA, NASA the IPCC for reports ? You act like every country has satellites in space, you act like every countrie have been monitoring day today temperature for the past 120 or so years...

Even Australia has AGW deniers..



.

 

Then they pay more for their insurance.

NASA Study Confirms Sea Levels Are FALLING .



NASA satellite sea level observations for the past 24 years show that – on average – sea levels have been rising 3.4 millimeters per year. That’s 0.134 inches, about the thickness of a dime and a nickel stacked together, per year.

That’s the average. But when you focus in on 2016 and 2017, you get a different picture.

 

Change to a conservative insurance company who didn't raise their rates over a foolish notion.

 

You really can't blame them for still trying. A bunch of them bet their life savings on Al Bore and green chip stocks to get in on the ground floor of the next big thing. Al's got millions and a new beach front home and they got the ozone.

 

How about the Mechanical Railroad Engineer that used to lead the IPCC?

 

There was no "study"...there was no "peer review"

http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

 

People blinded by religious beliefs are void of basic logic.

They don’t understand that a conclusion comes from facts.

They quote a conclusion and post a cartoon as a rebuttal.

Facts do not matter for them.

What is the litmus test for a fake scientist?

What is the litmus test for a fake science?

Is it that Inquisitor does not like them?

Is it who is for GW, against GW, for AWG, against AWG, in the middle?

Is it a party affiliation?

I am repeating the litmus test the 55th time:

A scientist is a charlatan, when he doesn't even know less understands the definition of climate, in what science it was defined, described and used since what time.

A scientist is a charlatan, when he doesn't even know less understands the definition of warming, in what science it was defined, described and used since what time.

Van Cliff was the first poster in history of PF who copy pasted the definition of climate for the public to see and understand what it is talking about.

The first one in the whole history:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...te-change-data.509557/page-15#post-1067786050

Do you understand the meaning of the words he copy pasted?

No, you don’t, don’t need, don’t want to, - your feelings will suffice.

What is the litmus test for a fake theory?

A fake theory is not based on strict definitions, it ignores definitions, it uses multiple definitions for the same value.

People are bubbling “climate”, but they are in total ignorance of what “climate” means in science.

People are bubbling “warming” but they are in total ignorance of what is warming in science.

Those people are charlatans and fake scientists no matter of affiliation, degree, awards, amount of publications.

 

Didn't see anything to support your assertion other than the claim that the study wasn't peer reviewed. The data came from the global warming scientists. .

 

Those people who believed scientists for hire, many of whom weren't even climatologists, will also believe Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

There's little can be done about it and - like everyone else - they should be allowed to continue with their beliefs, but without government funding. There'll always be those ' The End of the World is Nigh" believers, we see them all the time, but it's only recently that we began funding these charlatans.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26085162-a-disgrace-to-the-profession

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-else-did-al-gore-get-wrong-1501021804

 

It isn't my assertion, it's a fact and the data was directly stated in my link.

The authors are misinterpreting data in this non peer-reviewed non scientifically published study (aka, it's not usable as scientific evidence which is why it didn't "blow the lid on climate change" and was forgotten a week later).

You would see it if you read it:

http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-reef-bleaching-is-fake-news-hits-peak-denial


https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?t=c&Search=roy spencer

There's a reason for the 90-100% consensus. Overwhelming evidence from real studies. A single fake study which didn't catch on (thankfully) isn't undoing all of that.

Feel free to post recent peer-reviewed and scientifically published studies which aren't completely debunked to disprove a vast majority of studies and scientists. Good luck.

 

I wonder how much oceanfront property Gore has purchased all the while trying to scare people into selling it with his wild claims.

 

And 90-100% of publishing climate scientists. Apparently they are all lying and wrong too.

 

Would it be the first time a scientist had committed a fraud?

 

You have to prove it's a fraud with real scientific studies.

"From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%. The level of scientific agreement on AGW is overwhelmingly high because the supporting evidence is overwhelmingly strong."

 

It's a stretch to imagine that thousands of scientists are all committing fraud. Besides, I actually read their publication and make it a point to understand what their methods of analysis are and I honestly don't see any fraud there. I do have questions about some of the methods used and the conclusions they draw from the data, but when you actually read the research instead of learning about from a biased blogger it's completely transparent what they're doing and why they do it.

So I challenge you...show me evidence that there is an effort by thousands of scientists to fraudulently mislead each other without any of them picking up on the hidden agenda of their peers.

 

Such are times.

Thousands acclaimed journalists feverishly produce all fake news.

They know no better.

Thousands of scientists controlled/paid by government bureaucrats and corrupted politicians feverishly produce all fake fraudulent science.

They know no better.

The most disgusting part of fake science is the appeal to consensus, and at the same time it is a sure sign of fake fraudulent science.

The most revolting part of fake science is the appeal to overwhelming majority and at the same time it is a sure sign of fake fraudulent science.

Honestly you don't see the appeal to consensus and overwhelming majority?

Honestly you are not doing it?

So much for honesty.

But you know no better.

Consensus and overwhelming majority belong to politics, ideology, religious cult, saving Gia from evil humans, and that is the belief in climate change and global warming, and there is nothing else in it, no science, no rational, none, zero, zilch.

 

It has been. I think two threads going on the fallacious "adjustments" and that just the latest.

And now we know the sea's are receding.

 

I'm just asking about this blessing they seem to be getting that they are all so at the top of the ethics and morals mountain that seems to be being cast upon them such that they cannot even be questioned even when opposing evidence is presented.

We know data has been falsified and that data spread through the chain and then everyone suddenly agrees with it and presents it as fact. There are several threads already going about such data manipulations.

 

Do you have legitimate data to support this claim? Your 90-100% seems unscientific and more like a guess.

 

You know if one has a PhD one is infallible.

Like the Pope for Catholics.

You have underlined the blind religious belief in infallibility and incorruptibility of scientists.

Because they have scientific method.

Given to them by God.

On a high mountain.

Or by science elders, who gathered on a high hill and smoked a pipe of peace and decided that smoking pot is cool and healing, and then gave the scientific method written on tablets to the public below them.

Or by a guy who has never contributed to any natural science.

Who did give them the method?

I want to know the name.

I want to know what were his accomplishments in natural sciences which made him to dare to disregard Isaac Newton as an idiot.

I think the guy is a total idiot, but not Newton.

And so are the fanatics believing in infallibility and incorruptibility of scientists.