The best thing to do is just read what Motl at The Reference Frame has to say.
Skeptics have been beating the alarmists over the head with the fact that there has been no warming on a global scale for almost twenty years. Alarmist have fought back recently with a single study out from NOAA using a "revised" dataset.
It can be a little hard to follow, but to summarize at the risk of over-simplification, NOAA research cherry-picked sources that showed higher trends in temperature change. For example -- no, we're not making this up -- marine engine intakes:
That might be legitimate if one compared it strictly to historic temperatures obtained from the same sources. That's not exactly what was done. Motl explains:
TRF includes a link to Climate Etc. that we keep in the sidebar. You can read Dr. Curry's analysis here.
As one of the commenters says, NOAA is hardly an objective source since it is an agency funded by the government which desperately wants global warming to be taking place.
This is not science. This is propaganda on the order of the old Soviet Union's embrace of Lysenkoism: On August 7, 1948, the V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced that from that point on Lysenkoism would be taught as "the only correct theory". Soviet scientists were forced to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenko's research.[4] Criticism of Lysenko was denounced as "bourgeois" or "fascist".
Some people are saying that climate change "deniers" -- such as myself -- should be imprisoned or otherwise punished. Statists never change, and they never come up with anything new aside from their jargon, slogans, and catchphrases.
Skeptics have been beating the alarmists over the head with the fact that there has been no warming on a global scale for almost twenty years. Alarmist have fought back recently with a single study out from NOAA using a "revised" dataset.
It can be a little hard to follow, but to summarize at the risk of over-simplification, NOAA research cherry-picked sources that showed higher trends in temperature change. For example -- no, we're not making this up -- marine engine intakes:
You may talk about many trends – those in the ocean and above the land; and you may measure them in various ways, satellites, weather stations, weather balloons, buoys, or engine intake of marine vessels ;-).No possibility of that data having any contamination, is there? I'm surprised the weatherman doesn't report the temperature at his car's engine air intake. That's the number we need to know for the day.
That might be legitimate if one compared it strictly to historic temperatures obtained from the same sources. That's not exactly what was done. Motl explains:
However, the shock is that the warming trend extracted from the marine vessels was copied to the buoys time series. It means that an increasing linear function was simply added to the buoys' time series for the temperature – to make them more "well-behaved". Surprisingly for them ;-), once they added an increasing function to the temperature as a function of time, the slope (warming trend) extracted via the linear regression has increased! This surprising mathematical result must be the holy 884th sign of global warming that everyone was looking for!(Link in original)
You see what's going on. The warming trend indicated by the buoys – a project that was specifically designed by scientists to measure the temperature of the ocean – was completely erased by Karl et al. The time series was detrended and the trend was replaced by another trend extracted from a different source, one that wasn't meant to measure temperatures scientifically. Great.
TRF includes a link to Climate Etc. that we keep in the sidebar. You can read Dr. Curry's analysis here.
As one of the commenters says, NOAA is hardly an objective source since it is an agency funded by the government which desperately wants global warming to be taking place.
This is not science. This is propaganda on the order of the old Soviet Union's embrace of Lysenkoism: On August 7, 1948, the V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced that from that point on Lysenkoism would be taught as "the only correct theory". Soviet scientists were forced to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenko's research.[4] Criticism of Lysenko was denounced as "bourgeois" or "fascist".
Some people are saying that climate change "deniers" -- such as myself -- should be imprisoned or otherwise punished. Statists never change, and they never come up with anything new aside from their jargon, slogans, and catchphrases.
Aye, the climanistas deny reality and science, and thus far, they pay no price for it.
ReplyDeleteWhenever they are faced with evidence that they are wrong, or evidence that some unethical scientists have lied for monetary gain, they double down on stupid and attack anyone who tries to be rational.
It is good that more and more scientists have the courage to be honest. I do feel bad for the honest ones because their livelihood is threatened when they do speak out against the propaganda.
The ultimate goal of climanistas, of course, is not truth but power and control of people. And lots of govt. payoff cash as well.
Power and control, exactly.
ReplyDeleteI think the greenest thing about most green technology are the taxpayer dollars that subsidizes it.