>HAHAHA TRUMP DOESN'T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHA--
dailymail.co.uk
Global Warming data was manipulated
Jason King
Other urls found in this thread:
dailymail.co.uk
dailymail.co.uk
investors.com
abcnews.go.com
advances.sciencemag.org
carbonbrief.org
arstechnica.com
nytimes.com
deccanherald.com
meteo.psu.edu
wsl.ch
nature.com
thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com
pubs.giss.nasa.gov
arxiv.org
acs.org
nature.com
rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org
science.house.gov
science.house.gov
theguardian.com
opensecrets.org
archive.is
twitter.com
Isaac Baker
Bump
Wyatt Young
BUMP
Luke Diaz
Into the trash it goes!
Evan Murphy
>implying im stupid enough to read a dailymail article
Sup Forums truly is the board of sub 100 IQ brainlet retards
Mason Murphy
This is old news. Climate hate happened like years ago.
Christopher Thompson
i could tell you something but i'm sworn to secrecy so i'm not gonna'
Wyatt Torres
>f-f-fake news!!!!
>everything i dont like is fake!
>nope i wont even bother looking at the sources provided by dailymail, i dont like the website so it's fake!!
>everyone knows climate change is real xD i mean come on its 2017
Jack Anderson
Adrian Gomez
>Can't even be bothered to read the headline
How does it feel to literally be lower than the average normie on Goybook?
Henry Kelly
>the daily mail
Lol, trash.
man made climate change isn't real because the data doesn't add up, but the climate is changing.
Aiden Young
>dailymail
but even reading it, he's a retired scientist clamoring for attention or money. he took back his statement and vaguely said "oh no i meant the timing of the release was manipulative" which is some bullshit if i've ever heard it.
Eli Morris
>it didn't go through enough review steps
Well jeez, that's not even much of a claim. It's bad, but you guys made it sound like anthropogenic climate change was discredited.
Lucas Peterson
investors.com
>At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
>"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
>Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
This explains why human made climate change activists are leftist.
Carter Cox
>not allowing market forces to dictate every aspect of humanity equates to destroying capitalism
>putting words in that poor Christiana woman's mouth
For shame.
Jordan Cooper
we are at 400ppm co2
photosynthesis stops around180ppm
average levels of co2 past 4.5 billion years 2300ppm
as high as 10000ppm during dino times
Jordan Mitchell
>man made climate change isn't real because the data doesn't add up, but the climate is changing.
How would we know when data collection groups are intentionally using known bad data because it better fits their political beliefs that temperatures have been changing? Or are using data manipulation software so unstable that the same data gives different results every time it processes the same raw data?
Josiah Kelly
...
Tyler Diaz
pic related is a little more damning against global warming
its been stalled for years
the post this was from actually was about a new ice age if you can believe that, fuck around with the water currents (eg by dumping more freshwater from melted glaciers) and it offsets some mechanics in the deep ocean which have a bigger effect on the climate
> look up "Albedo"
Connor Ward
> The NOAA official in charge of sciency
> Some website known for celeb masturbation reports
> lol attacking the source is the opposite of a logical fallacy
> The first point still stands and hasn't been countered
David Thomas
We've known Climate Change was real since the 70's. Unfortunately that's the only time we could have done anything to make a difference.
Some of you anons are alright, I'd stay away from the coasts if I were you.
Jordan Rodriguez
see this is how (((they))) work, its pretty noteworthy that the globalists/jews like to tell people "you can have it one way, or the other, but not both"
but thats a smokescreen for hiding option #3, #4, #5, and combinations thereof
Global "Warming" has never been an issue on earth, thats the easy breathing time between the Ice Ages.
The global warming hoax is designed entirely to collect carbon tax credits and promote these stupid green technologies (which arent much more than virtue signalling) - which also gives them an excuse to drive up petroleum prices.
Obama shut down coal for example. That put alot of people out of work, entire areas became unemployed. Nobody else stopped using coal really, china sure as fuck didnt.
Nicholas Richardson
Please read:
abcnews.go.com
>However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.
>"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
Of course, Bates knew exactly what he was doing by going to the often discredited David Rose of the Daily Mail to break his shitty story. Of course all the deniers ate it right up without actually understanding what Bates was saying.
Blown the fuck out by your own """whistleblower"""
It's also been reported that Karl demoted Bates when he was head of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information in 2012.
Nothing Bates has said changes the results of the 2015 Karl et al. study, nor does it change the results of other studies that have replicated the study's fundings, such as the Hausfather et al. paper from 2017:
advances.sciencemag.org
Also, FYI, David Rose is a retard, see how stupid he is in that he's incapable of understanding what a baseline is in plotting a trendline:
carbonbrief.org
As for Bate's accusations that the 2015 paper was rushed, it took 109 days for the Karl et al. paper to undergo review at Science before being published.
Jaxon Fisher
I might worry when wealthy liberals start selling their beachfront properties instead of trying to buy more of them.
William Gutierrez
The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact.
Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.
Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.
Isaiah Jones
The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.
If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.
Isaac Reyes
Fuck you.
John Ortiz
>weather = climate
Jaxson Walker
No, it has not "been stalled for years." Learn how to read a trendline. You can't just start at the largest El Nino event in recorded history (1998) and claim the trend is downwards you twat.
Jonathan Moore
>dailymail.co.uk
"Adjusting data to curves" is part of statistics dummy. It's not "manipulation" it's correcting to averages... why do you think "real wages" are different to "nominal wages"... bunch of mathematic illiterates in /this/thread
Alexander Martin
sea level rise, if any, wouldnt be enough to pose a danger to somebody, its such a slow process a person would only remember it in their old age that some place might be a beach then when it used to be inland
also more heat means more clouds, clouds condense and produce rain which is Cold and shelters areas from sunlight
heating trapped (by co2) gets transferred to water vapor and gets radiated back out into space again at high altitudes
give me a break, increasing co2 to increase heat just increases the rate that its radiated back out into space
irrelevant, read ^
Eli Diaz
Why can't their program return the same result more than once?
David Rogers
No you faggot they lie to you during the election. They can't be trusted ever.
Kayden Nguyen
what if global warming was real, but not because of the reasons we are told.
What if (((They))) have something to do with it.
What if science really did go to far like CERN HAARP and who knows what else.
Sebastian Flores
>None of you faggots know who this man is
>You haven't been using the climategate proof he dug up years ago to btfo normie for the past 5 years
You faggots call yourselves redpilled
You make me sick
Brayden Martin
>agw is totes happening guiz
>even though they have had to manipulate the figures to prove it
Noah Turner
Highest elevations are out west. The most liberal people are out west. coincidence?
Is it also a coincidence that the east and southern coast is at the lowest elevation?
Jose Price
lmao DailyMail......... is /pol so fucking autistic that it doesnt believe global warming??
Adrian Murphy
Fan of Dellers here. He even published a defence of the Alt-Right fairly recently.
Benjamin Hill
...
Kayden Long
Libs aren't buying homes in the Rockies. New Orleans is even already below sea level and no one there seems to give a dick enough to leave.
Kevin Gutierrez
advances.sciencemag.org
Irrelevant, read^
>Climategate
Oh yeah, the infamous "climategate" that was investegated 8 times by independent committees and found no wrongdoing.
nytimes.com
deccanherald.com
The most damning thing you faggots could even find in the hacked emails was "hide the decline" and "mike's trick," both of which are absolutely nothing when understood in the context. All it took was a bunch of deniers cherrypicking things they didn't understand to create a "scandal"
Mike's Trick:
meteo.psu.edu
"Hide the Decline"
wsl.ch
This is what the decline refers to, read the abstract at least to understand.
Mann dealt with tree rings as a proxy for paleoclimate temperature data in his reconstructions. In essence, they weren't trying to "hide" a temperature decline or whatever the denialists tried to spin it as.
Noah Gonzalez
Oh look, someone posted this shit again. Honestly, do you guys want me to go through each image and explain / debunk everything this retarded slavshit says?
First off, his first statement claiming there is no evidence for humans driving climate change is blatantly false. Literally the first sentence he utters in his rambling is false:
nature.com
thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com
pubs.giss.nasa.gov
arxiv.org
acs.org
nature.com
rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org
>Use of the ACRIM composite, which shows a rise in TSI over recent decades, is shown to be inconsistent with most published evidence for solar influences on pre-industrial climate. The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings.
The sun is not driving climate change. Volcanoes are not driving the current trend. The only answer is that human emissions are driving the trend, you cannot ignore this. Natural factors, that is, without anthropogenic interference in our atmosphere, would lead to the Earth having a very stable, to slightly, very slightly cooling atmosphere.
Samuel Peterson
This.
If you're actually intelligent, read the reports and statements of people and institutions yourself.
As for this whistleblower stuff, Bates is accusing Karl of data manipulation such to overplay global warming.
Now, one big thing to note is that the dispute is over the RATE of warming, not its existence. Bates is saying that there is evidence that suggested that warming was slowing in the decade after 2000 and that climate scientists are trying to cover it up, specifically Karl.
If you actually read the response, you'll see why the alteration was made: the sum of data that suggested a pause in the increase of the rate of warming was collected haphazardly, with various methods of data collection being cobbled together.
Now, remember, this data set only applies to the years 2000-2010. We know for a fact that the rate of warming is increasing since 2010-2017.
The specific thing that Karl did was interpret data that he himself didn't even alter: it was adjusted by other groups to try to reconcile systemic errors in the collection process with how they might appear on modern processes
tl;dr:
>dispute isn't about global warming existing, it's about whether the rate at which the planet is warming is increasing
>the data that was altered was collected in several different ways that were not reconciled and didn't account for systemic and procedural differences that produce different results
>faulty data set only pertains to 2000-2010; climate change data between is 2010-2017 is still at a 90% confidence rating
Luke Watson
Wasn't there a thread not too long ago on a simulator that showed the maximum the water would rise and virtually nothing of value was lost.
Gabriel Baker
>As for this whistleblower stuff, Bates is accusing Karl of data manipulation such to overplay global warming.
He didn't say that, see the abc link I posted above:
>However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
>no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.
Bates is just butthurt that he got demoted by Karl and that they didn't go through his autistic process.
Jacob Young
>MUH GLOBAL WARMING DOOMSDAY PROPHECY DEATH CULT
Jonathan Barnes
What retardation is this? How is climate change still a debate? It's happening. It's man-made. It's too late to reverse anyway. The question is: What will the damage be?
Grayson Ramirez
Joshua Jenkins
big, if true
Liam Gutierrez
Thanks for pointing that out, I'm on my phone so I missed your link.
Oliver Gonzalez
>committee on science
>newly appointed by a pro-oil, climate change denying president
>puts up news about article that we literally said here, on this thread, doesn't ever suggest that man made climate change is a hoax (not even the whistleblower himself)
Andrew Smith
Can I join? I want the earth to warm up so I don't have to suffer through our shitty winters.
Chase Scott
Oh yes, the house science committee, headed by Lamar Smith and a bunch of other retarded denialists / creationists. How ironic that a committee on scientific matters is led by some of the least scientific people alive, all of them funded by the petroleum industry by the way:
theguardian.com
opensecrets.org
The great Irony is almost everything in those links is contradicted by interviews Bates himself has had since the story broke.
No problem. This whole thing is pretty much making a mountain out of an anthill though, as soon as I saw the story break I knew that climate deniers would jump all over this and exaggerate it as much as they possibly can.
If Bates wanted to make his case better he should have thought about going to a more reputable source than TDM too.
Thomas Young
Archive: archive.is