NASA / NOAA Climate Data Is Fake Data

Of course there was. It has matched the 60-year cycle's downphase, just as the 1970-1998 warming matched its up-phase. Even your favorite AGW screamers have admitted it, remember? "It's a travesty that we can't account for it."

Like this year's record cold spell in most of North America?

More AGW screaming with no scientific basis.

How do you get away with those constant Rule 2 violations?

No, that is a slander.

Bates called the paper into question in the first place, remember?

And...?

 

I have wondered that myself.

 

Grants come in no matter what the results are, as long as the science is good. If you disagree, point out someone who was fired. That's why your desperate conspiracy theory fails so badly. We understand why you need such conspiracy theories, being that all the data says you're wrong.

You also need to understand that we're not like you. You'd fudge data for a paycheck, so you assume everyone else would do so. That's not the case. You being unable to imagine others acting ethically doesn't mean they're not acting ethically.

Follow the money. It's all flowing to deniers, so that's where the corruption obviously is. Any reputable scientist could instantly double their salary by choosing to lie for the deniers. They don't. Scientists effectively take a pay cut by refusing to take denier cash, so the money issue gives them added credibility.

 

FOX Alert!

 

So, recently, there was a commotion about a report that the arctic had experienced record warmth. Just this week, the arctic just exhibited a more important observation. A new absolute cold record was established. Meaning, that an actual recording of this temperature at sea level has never happened. Now, this simply means that this may not be unique, as we may have missed recording temperatures like this in the past, but this is the first time, an actual measurement of this level of cold has been captured.

 

Um, no. A single spot, Mould Bay, had a new absolute cold record. That's it.

And that's to be expected. New absolute cold records will still be set. They'll just keep being set less often, while new warmth records will become more common. That's what happens when the climate warms strongly, as it has been doing.

 

This thread is Horse manure.
I love the neanderthals that swallow the fossil fuel industry propaganda against scientists.
What motive is there to fake global warming???
The motive to spread the lie that global warming is fake to fool idiots is very clear - GREED.

 

The motive is two fold. First there's the world politics motive of weakening Americas economy while letting other countries have an unfair advantage. As we are forced to abide by rules that make our business non competitive, other countries get to catch up with us as they get the business we lost. The other part is new age anti fossil fuel zealots that come at this with a religious fervor that has become cult like behavior. Our government has in the last eight years fed off both these wings and created a third wing which is the financial incentive factor. Many so called scientist have made a nice living off government grants by telling government (Obama) what they wanted to hear.

 

What's laughable is your utterly ridiculous notion that Climate Change adherents espouse their view for the money, when it's big oil, coal, auto, etc, who are pumping in the money.

 

Which again, has never happened, and is still a new absolute record for the location. Which still makes it significant if we also attribute significance to other point temperature captures. For this, trending doesn't actually become the standard we evaluate from, it becomes the level of absolute. As in for this particular point, the temp wasn't just slightly lower, it was significantly lower, which begs the question of how it achieved such a significant difference.

 

The US government pumped in over $8B last year alone. That's a lot of incentive.

 

Your link please.

 

Wow... link me this, link me that. It's like you're incapable of the smallest personal task. Use the Google, find it yourself. You sound like an entitled junior high school girl.

 

There's ample anti-science propaganda on the warmist side. Hardly a day goes by without some silly, hysterical "news" story about the perils of CO2 on news sites like Yahoo, MSNBC, NYT, etc. I have worked in PR, and I know that kind of propaganda effort does not come cheap.

I have thought about this, and I have a hypothesis. One of the biggest geopolitical headaches the USA and other advanced countries face is the use of oil money for nefarious purposes by Russia, Saudi-funded terrorists like al Qaeda, Iran-funded terror groups like Hezbollah, all the radical Muslim schools and mosques that OPEC oil money has funded all over the world, Venezuela's use of its oil money to support Cuba, etc. One of the long-term effects of warmist shrieking is to reduce demand for oil. As both demand and supply are quite inelastic, that means prices will fall -- have already fallen -- considerably. So the intent of global warming hysteria may be to starve the oil states and thus their clients of funding. Just putting it out there for your consideration.

 

Indeed. If to take in the consideration difference in technology, methodology and calibration the fake dispute between scientists become fake in the third power.
Certainly scientists never took "Theory of technological measurements and instruments" and have no clue what Temperature is and would never know that warming
is not measured in C or F or any other units of Temperature. You cannot ask them such simple basic questions.