Whistleblower "scientists cooked climate change books"

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html

This will be very interesting. (PS, sorry mods, thought I was posting this in OT instead of system wars!)

A key Obama administration scientist brushed aside inconvenient data that showed a slowdown in global warming in compiling an alarming 2015 report that coincided with the White House participation in the Paris Climate Conference, a whistle blower is alleging.

Lol Fox News.

Lol Fake News

Lol Fox news.

If true, this is very interesting and almost compares with how An Inconvenient Truth was debunked.

LMAO Fox News citing The Daily Mail. Good lord

“They weren’t cooking the books,” Zeke Hausfather, the study’s lead author and a graduate student in UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group

The source of the above quote

The source of Assessing Recent Warming Using Instrumentally Homogenous Sea Surface Temperature Records

_____

Here you go everyone, a fun tidbit:

A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed.

Source

Whens winter coming? Its still hot as ****. Some one done changed our climate.

Their median viewer age is like 70 isnt it? It's background noise until some old bastard from the south hears the word black. Fox News citing Daily Mail is about as dubious as a citation can get.

Obviously the fact that glaciers have melted at clearly measurable rates within living memory is a liberal hoax.

Nearly 70. 67-68 years old

In total day, CNN’s median viewer age was 61 compared to 67 for Fox. But in primetime the difference was starker; CNN’s average was 59 while Fox News averaged 68.

Source

Wrecked.

http://www.popsci.com/regardless-house-science-committee-claims-noaa-scientists-probably-didnt-manipulate-climate-records

A good read regarding the article I posted originally.

#rekt

There was a snafu years ago about a few researchers that were exaggerating their findings. It was some email thing that got released. That does not however, discredit the tons of other independent research that strongly suggests climate change / global warming. It is a shame, however, that some scientists would falsify or alter data. That is essentially the worst thing a scientist can do.

Nazi's live under the ice. They're finally waking up.

If you're referring to the 'climate gate' emails released in order to discredit Climate Change, then no one was caught fabricating data. It was simply journalists combing through 10,000 emails and quote mining scientific lingo they didn't understand. And again, it was Fox News pushing that same old shit like they always do.

Mountains out of molehills. Worse than that, actually.

The Aryan Ice theory, lol. Gotta love how utterly absurd the mythology many Nazis believed in. Like Himmler only eating with 12 people, like King Arthur, and making the SS have leeks and mineral water for breakfast. lol.

It's obviously true. It's the same shit we've been hearing about climate science forever. This isn't the first scientist to come forward and say the data has been manipulated.

Honestly, I'm beginning to think science is a bit too complicated for liberals. Seems to me they're clearly shaping and interpreting the data to fit their hypothesis, rather than interpreting the data as it's measured. We've essentially entered an age of anti-science and useful idiots who get swept up in it because they don't understand the key principles of how science is supposed to work. They're not only ignorant, but proudly dumb (turning them into drones who are easily led by the nose and incapable of independent thought). Science is all about challenging existing theories or ideas using newly found evidence - and do you know what Bill Nye thinks about that? He thinks people challenging existing theories should be jailed. If that doesn't tell you there's something insanely fishy going on, then I'm not sure what would.

You don't have to be a genius to take a look at how climate change has been presented over the past decades and see how artificial most of it is. Growing up in Seattle, this liberal crap has been rubbed in my face all my life and I'm really beginning to notice how much it reeks.

Wow, the OP got rekt.

As usual, Fox news fails at anything STEM related.

Questioning established science is great. But it has to be done via the scientific method. These attempts to discredit the scientists via conspiracy theories and other nonsense is not a scientific way to do it.

But we all know why they keep attempting to discredit the scientists rather than the research. Because these people are frauds, and they know that.

That doesnt mean there arent good arguments against environmentalists and whatnot. @bmanva for example, has repeatedly argued from an economic perspective as opposed to denying the science. But attempting to assert that the climate isnt changing or that humanity isn't partially causing it is just getting silly at this point.

Edit: There is also the fact that a lot of environmentalist politicians often exaggerate the climate change quite a bit. Just as there is plenty of stupidity on skeptic side, the other side is also under a heavy dose of stupid. Ideally, you shouldnt look into what the politicians and ideologues say, you should look at what goes into the scientific journals. The scientific journals make it quite clear that CO2 impacts the climate of the environment quite a bit, as well as the other greenhouse gasses.

I don't care about global warming but will admit smog air stinks! We can't even drink rain water.

They didn't fabricate data, they just din't include all the data pertinent on the subject in their computer models. Like the suns effect on the climate.

I believe it. The things those clowns will do are astounding. I worked with people like that in the field for a year after graduating in my first degree, geography.

I'd like to believe that most are not like that though.

El oh el....Fox News. Hahahahahahaha.......

They have a point. Why use ship reports when buoy data are more representative? When we need sea surface temperatures, we rely far more on buoy data.

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/

When we do use ship reports, we correlate them with buoy data to see if they're consistent and make adjustments if necessary.

Fox News and Science should never be used together. lmao

Yeah, Fox News is especially bad. But generally speaking the best thing to do is go back to the original source.

Reading articles from professional science journalists is generally fine. Since they generally know what they are talking about. But random blogs? Terrible idea. Or you might buy into bogus myths like Fossil Fuel Gasses only making up 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere because people confuse flux with the overall data.

It doesn't surprise me that Gamespot's biggest Trump supporter is also a climate change denier and Fox News viewer.

This things always seem to go hand-in-hand.

Where did he state he was a viewer of Fox News, or a climate change denier. Is posting a story a promotion of the contents automatically?

I just posted a story. I also posted a story arguing against it from Popular Science.

I'm guessing you didn't read anything in this thread but the opening post.

Guessing you're a liberal and just assume the worst...These(not this) things go hand in hand.

Lmfao Fox News!

This is the same tactic Donald Trump used when he referenced a National Enquirer article that Ted Cruz's dad helped in the JFK assassination and saying he doesn't "believe" it, that it's just out there and everyone else should decide. An 8 year old can see through the charade.

You also can't read.

Just like Trump amirite?

^ this guy. *high five*.

After millions of years of climate change it is now man made. How can this be? The climate changed before man even came into the picture. Instead of looking at the climate we need to follow the money.

Of course I can read but you are a fool if you think we should believe everything you say and take it in good faith.

I've never lied on here.

Climate Change is notable because of the acceleration this phenomenon occurred following the industrial revolution.

Granted, it would be dishonest to say all of that was entirely caused by the CO2 released by factories.

Cutting down of trees for farmland also increases CO2 output. SA deforestation does not help.

Man never created an ice age or changed the climate to eliminate the ice age. Yet they occurred with out man's help. Man is not that smart. I have to question man made climate change when the scientist promoting man made climate change leave out information or use false information, which has been documented, to arrive at a certain conclusion. As I said, follow the money. Climate change is a 2.5 trillion dollar industry.

Why are the main deniers of climate change politicians who make money off the oil lobby, and the oil companies themselves? Why would 97% of scientists in related fields perpetrate a hoax in which the vast majority of them make under 70,000 a year, and struggle to keep their research funded even from the public treasuries? Your number is also absurd. The natural gas and coal industry is the only 2.5 trillion dollar industry, and they just happen to be the main perpetrators of climate denial, alongside chemical manufacturers like Koch Industries.

First of all the 97% of scientist is an incorrect number. The number keeps changing lower. This is now a political item and it always has been. The main purpose of this was to destroy capitalism. It first started with global cooling in the 1970's. when that didn't work it switched to global warming. When it was proven the planet wasn't getting warmer it switched to climate change. Climate change is the only constant. The climate gas changed constantly over the life of the planet. The Sahara Desert was once lush and green. in climate change some areas improve and some get worse. That is the way it is. We can not control; the climate we are not that smart. To destroy our economic freedom for a hoax is mind boggling.

Well, it's supposed to be 74 today in Denver, CO. A snowy state, in February, with a temp of 74... Something's up!

I really couldn't care less.. The supposed "environmental" party within the United States (Democrats) are pro environment in name only.. Hillary for instance is pro fracking, one of the most destructive practices to the environment.. Her running mate was a coal industry stooge who was heavy pro fossil fuels industry.. We found out recently that the EPA policies were being influenced by Fracking companies for years with the Obama administrations support... The Paris accords is a absolutely toothless act to appease environmentalist.. Meanwhile things like nuclear power plants are still prohibited even though they are the most effective and cleanest of the major energy sources..

The only time you will ever see change is when corporate influences are cut out of the government.. Which at this point looks like a cold day in hell..

Denver winds today are out of the west from the direction of the mountains and going downhill. The resulting friction causes adiabatic warming. It's not quite a classic chinook. But, it gives the same warming and drying effect. It happens often back in my hometown in northern Nevada.

There's also a warm front to the west which pushes warmer air ahead of it. A combination of: warm air advection + adiabatic heating + daytime heating = Denver in the 70's.

Happens all the time at mountainous regions, especially if you're at the leeside of the mountains.

A new system will come in tomorrow and shift the winds to the opposite direction, bringing in some rain which will turn to snow later.

No, the number does not keep changing, people keep quoting the wrong things and many dont understand the difference between extremely bad and vague terms like "Scientists" or "Climatologist", they also have issues with measurements involving one country, and the world. The latter being that thing that too many Americans tend to forget about when considering these topics. Even if we assume this is true, and it does not appear to be, whats the rest of the world say? We're not the only one's doing this research, there is a world of data out there that can really point us in the right direction, and it says............. ooohhh, it says the same exact thing that right wingers in America keep trying to call fake.

1. This topic didnt become "political" until Gore and his little movie and attempting to run on this being an issue we needed to come together and address. Once this happened the republicans had to attack him on this issue, so they turned it into an opinion based thing. Before that, 99% of the US was in agreement and understood it was simply an issue we had to address as human beings.

2. The "global cooling" thing was from one article, a handful of media outlets then ran wild with a single quote they misinterpreted. The SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, CLIMATOLOGISTS who were the ones who told you it was an incorrect quote.... i dont find it coincidental that arguing this topic with people is exact to discussing creation and people who think dinosaurs were fake, by citing a hoax fossil in China that attempted to be sold, but the people who verify the reality of fossils turned up and said it was a hoax. So, you need to realize the people who told you this specific quote or data was wrong, are the same people telling you, you're wrong. So you need to decide if using this "information" is worth it, because its validating these people as authorities on the subject, and these people are still telling you, you're wrong. You cant simply highlight one thing theyve said in order to craft a narrative, which is all youve done.

3. "When it was proven the planet wasn't getting warmer it switched to climate change. Climate change is the only constant." At this point if you dont know the world is getting warmer, which is a fact measured by every possible measurement standard we have.... then i really dont know what to say.... .crawl into a box and send yourself to the moon because youve failed at life here. Oh, and youre now talking about "terms". Climate Change is a secondary term for Global Warming, its was added because incredibly stupid people, i suspect people just like yourself, would refute these facts with "its snowing and cold".

4. Im sure you've been told before, im willing to bet its been hammered into your head.... "Climate Change" as a natural occurrence, generally happens over tens of thousands (for very small) to hundreds of thousands (medium) to millions (large) of years. When it happens in such a quick manner, such a fast event, its considered a "catastrophic". Now, sit down little guy...... Its considered this because it leads to a significantly higher rate of extinction between plants and animals (another thing demonstrated through data that is not a fucking opinion), which includes us. So lets go over these details really quick. This means that while life can survive the quick and sudden changes, more life survives and the worlds ecosystem is less damaged and changed with slower. The "slower" is technically always happening, much like evolution. Understood? So even if its by natural means, we want to attempt to slow it down and adjust as best as possible because it helps the human species.

5. I dont know what economic freedom you're talking about. If it was not for oil lobby groups paying our politicians to insert laws that reject solar energy, make it illegal in some places, add taxes to people who use it, and to not give solar the same attention/tax breaks, as oil, solar would have used a "free market" in order to destroy oil. At least on the consumer level. Industry probably not. So what economic freedom is going on? I find this idea that the oil companies who buy our politicians, who receive tax breaks in the billions, who are allowed to illegally.......... well, everything, you name it, etc. are some how the good guys in this bullshit narrative youve created... err... youve repeated from people who want to help convince the population oil is good, because it makes them more money by rigging this system.... the irony in this false concern of yours is just............. its....... its literally your entire thesis. The worst part is i can imagine youve had these conversations before and have been correct on your information.... corrected, not shown a different subjective opinion, but corrected on information youve gotten factually wrong. But youll continue to preach your false narratives and at this point, lies.

I live in a county in Florida where if you have a solar panel and are not using a certain amount of "traditional energy sources" (their words not mine), you will be charged a fee that is roughly the same cost as the average electricity bill from "traditional energy sources". Theres your bullshit economic freedom. Thats what you are fighting for, that is your "economic freedom". Of course an off topic irony i cannot help but notice is that youll take this route, but you hate the ACA.

Rule #1: Don't engage JimB on anything science related, you're better off smashing your head into a wall.