Whistleblower "scientists cooked climate change books"

There are 4 new nuclear power plants/units currently under construction with the license to operate once the units are completed. The NRC has given the OK to start up and run the 2 Westinghouse AP1000 units at Plant Vogtle outside of Waynesboro GA and the 2 at the VC Summer plant outside of Jenkinsville SC.

Well that's great news.. Because I remember being disheartened that even the anti fossil fuel industry Bernie Sanders was anti nuclear power plant. Thank you for the information.

A couple of years go, someone stated that it would take 20 years to get a new nuclear plant built and I stated then that those plants were under construction. These plants have been under construction for almost 4 years now and Unit 3 at Vogtle is expected to go online in a couple of more years with Unit 4 just a year after that.

A scientific number was used to perpetuate the destruction of capitalism? Ummmm, I think that might be a stretch.

The switch from the terms global warming to climate change is recent, and was started by oil lobbyists. Brand is everything, and this is about as obvious a pr move as one could make.

Id like to point out (hopefully someone else has) that this is simply not true and this incident really does highlight the problems with the anti-CC crowd. The "whistleblower" does not know how to read and cannot tell the difference between scientific data and someone giving an opinion or saying something outside of data.

Of course if you've been following these people, you'd know this is simply an every day fail for them that most are often too stupid to recognize.

Potholer51 published a pretty good video on this. Unlike many of the cranks on youtube, Potholer is a professional journalist who knows what he is talking about. And focuses on science, NOT politics.

All in all, Daily Fail is known as Daily Fail for a reason.

I made a mistake in the 97 % of scientists believing in climate change. That number is accurate and I also believe in climate change. The number of scientists that believe it is man made is somewhere around 50%. On the first earth day in 1970 some scientists there was going to be mass starvation do to global cooling in ten to twenty years. They were trying to come up with a way to melt polar ice caps. Their predictions did not come to pass. Now they are worried about the ice caps melting. Before the fall of the Soviet Union the leftists supported them because the opposed capitalism. When the Soviet Union fell the support moved into the environmental movement to destroy capitalism. In fact it got so bad the founder of Greenpeace left the movement he had started. I ask why the United States has to give up the most in all these climate change agreements when the United States has done more than any other country in cleaning the environment. Also as I have stated before the climate change industry is a 2.5 trillion dollar industry. It is not for the protection of the environment.

You do realize that global cooling thing was even widely disregarded back then? There was an article or 2 about it. But overall the general consensus, even back then was that of global warming. With far more articles on global warming than global cooling. This whole, scientists believed in the global cooling myth is just as bunk as the notion that the intellectual community ever believed in a flat earth.

As a theory, climate change is well over a century old by now. Decades before the soviets were a thing

Edit, that global cooling thing was massively misrepresented by the media. What the scientists were talking about was a temporary period of cooling which occured back then. But non-scientific journalists like Time misrepresented the data. Drawing it to a hyperboled conclusion. This would have been evident to anyone who actually read the journal.

JimB might be the dumbest poster on this forum lol

No he isnt.

Sadly enough.

44 peer reviewed/scientific articles predicting global warming. 7 predicting global cooling.

Tell me again how the scientific consensus in the 70s was that of a global cooling.

But lets get real here. There is a good reason the media in particular were more concerned with an ice age back then. The reason was that while the mechanisms for global warming at that point were well understood, the mechanisms for an ice age were not. Back in the 70s scientists were figuring out the mechanisms for ice ages. So there was an innate hype with that.

Fox News. Hahahahaha........

Hey, in the interest of academic honesty, we should take him at his word, examine his proof and determine if it is credible. If it doesn't hold up, then fine, but we can't just dismiss it based on the source... that's how you get where we are right now with the fake news epidemic. People either accepting or denying something because it fulfills their confirmation bias, or doesn't agree with their sensibility.

We need more people to start talking about climate change in a public setting, and teaching people it's not about "getting hotter", it's about a mean global temperature increase causing more severe weather patterns, in both directions on the thermometer, and should be a cause for extreme concern, because it's going to kill the planet, along with us... regardless of what could be causing it.

I agree, thankfully. That has already been done. It was shown to be Daily Fail making a mountain out of a molehill. Making a big deal of something without understanding WHY. Which is probably why most respectable scientists are laughing their arses off at the people who believed in this conspiracy theory.

One of the reasons for what happened in this manufacontroversy is the fact that outside variables impacted the heat. In parcticular, the heat generated by the ships interfering. Afterwards, other ships were being used, which didnt have this problem. So the increased heat, in the data, was done to account for this. Science generally concerns itself with patterns. So in order to maintain consistant patterns, followed by the elimination of outside variables... this happened.

Edit: All in all, science gets better tools of measurement as time passes. The data was adjusted to adapt to the fact that later tools had better ways to test the temperatures. Reason for not moving the others down?

From the scientists themselves, "NOAA adjusted buoys up to match the ship record in version 4 of their ocean temperature record simply because ships make up 90% of our ocean record, with buoys only available in recent years. In response to folks getting confused about this, NOAA will be adjusting ships down to buoys in their upcoming version 5, but this makes no difference on the resulting temperature trends."

Moving future results up, rather than down, results in a lot less man hours of work. While giving the exact same results.

That's liberal propaganda.

When there are record setting high temperatures in the US as well as Australia during winter and summer respectively, you know there is an issue somehow.

The first part was bad practice. The last part is good (Version 5). While there may be no noticeable difference in temperature differences, it's still good practice to have a good starting point for temperatures. Less likely to raise an eyebrow.

The scientific models in the 1970s were not set in stone for all time. The problem is when this information is discovered to be erroneous, more accurate models are put in it's place. However, people will listen to politicians, paid by the oil lobby, who utilize the old, erroneous data, whilst ignoring the more accurate models. Also, the 97% number is not a poll of scientists. It is a meta collection of scientific papers from the last 30 years. 97% of these papers contained data models and studies that showed man made climate change being responsible for the uptick in greenhouse gases. Please provide proof that climate change is a 2.5 trillion dollar industry, and include alongside that how this is a 2.5 trillion dollar industry, yet is aimed towards destroying the financial system it operates within.

Not really.

Errors in methodology are not bad practice. As long as the errors are outright admitted to, and avoided as much as the resources provided allowed for. No science experiment is perfect. The latter results were adapted to the heat generated by the ship. The reason they didnt use Buoys from the start was due the lack of access to them in the beginning of the experiment. Long term scientific research often have changed tools (better, more precise) throughout the course of the research, which in turn may impact results. This is no exception.

@Maroxad: Are you a scientist?

No, I am an engineer.

But I am friends with a handful of scientists. And I also have basic knowledge on how to read a scientific literature. I can't say the same for The Daily Fail.

What kind of engineer?

Software Engineer.

But I also opted into some physics courses. Just because the subject interested me. When I was choosing what to major in, I faced a pretty difficult decision between physics and software engineering. Even today, a part of me wishes I went with physics.

Edit: I am nowhere near as well versed in these scientific fields as a professoinal scientist of course. But the errors that the conspiracy theory nuts made were pretty damn blatant to anyone with even a shred of awareness within this subject.

From what I have been reading, climatologists were adjusting buoy data to match ship data which is wrong. It should be the other way around.

There should be enough records for both to correlate ship observations with buoy data and make the necessary adjustments. Anyway, ship records should always be adjusted to conform with buoy data because the buoys are the closest to the water. The only thing better is a towed array. But, that's a lot of work just to get sensor readings.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers(N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of nonexperts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’)represent nonendorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics.We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

Daily News > 97% of climate scientists? Please provide a counter study (not Fox News).

Doesn't seem too complicated to me. This is evolution all over again, with American conservatives being the last people in the first world to accept sound science. Is it bad schooling in red counties? Dunno, maybe. More conservative voting areas do happen to have a lower IQ, must be some correlation.

I know N64DD just jokes around sometimes, but you have me worried.

Like I said... or at least (I think I said). THe reason they swapped it around altering new data instead of old is because of the ammount of man-hours involved in doing the former as opposed to the latter. Since the point of the experiment is to observe trends, and not the heat at each individual step. Both give the exact same results. But one results in a lot less work. Work that can be spent elsewhere. It is merely a matter of taking a more efficient route.

Even science, works under budget and time constraints.

Hey could be worse, could be LOL CNN.

I dunno man they ended up being right about the whole Russian thing, and are still quite a bit more credible than Fox. But yeah most of the MSM does have issues at the moment.

I dont think Potholer is a journalist. I think hes still in college, i could be wrong on that though. Its been a while since ive watched any of his stuff.

Youve probably seen him or at least heard of him, but i suggest COncOrdance youtube.com/user/C0nc0rdance

I will say this. The biggest problem here is when you attempt to present scientific evidence, the counter claim is that the entire world has been bought off by companies who dont have enough money to take over yet, but want to... but also some how have enough to buy every climatologist in the world. So they will still say that its political.

Were they right?

Whats funny is with all of the presented material for the whole Russia thing, there is always an astrix at the bottom that says "this did no actually happen" or something like that. It seems like them learning from the mistakes of the Bush admin.

@kod: Yeah, I have definately heard about him. I follow plenty of scientists, mathematicians and journalists in those fields on youtube. They make up about 80% of what I subscribe to. The other 20% is a few gaming related videos and Kyle Kulinski.

As for potholer, he has been a journalist since at least 1988.

It is a shame how Climate change has fallen so deep into politics. I see it as mostly a scientific issue, doing something is where the politics lie. But the whole CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the earth to heat up on average? That is not politics, that is science.

CNN reported on the intelligence debriefing about the Dossier, not the Dossier being true (they actually stated it was unsubstantiated). This debriefing did happen - confirmed by Biden and Fox News the very next day.

There was nothing fake about that specific report of which Trump started this whole "CNN FAKE NEWS" issue on.

LOL Faux News

Yah..... i blame Gore actually. When he took it up as an issue to be addressed was when the right wing was really falling into this insanity slump they are in and thats when we saw it become very a political stance or opinion. Theres a wide range of issues here but... its just a shame that we have such a large portion of politicians and followers of these politicians, who don't understand the difference between the scientific method and their opinion. And that really seems to be at the heart of it all.. not to mention this seems to have started with the rise of the bible belt in the late 70s and 80s.

Do you have a link to the specific article?

Id love to see this because Jimmy Dore did a segment showing how almost every article CNN printed on this subject, at the bottom had an astrix that said it was basically BS.

Yeah, so do I. He had good intentions, but sadly the consequences were disasterous. Over here, climate change is mostly apolitical, both the mainstream left wing and right wing parties accept climate change and try to cut down on emissions.

http://www.moderat.se/debatt/ja-vi-tar-vart-ansvar-miljon (The Moderate party is a right wing party)

But sadly, the Sweden Democrats may put an end to that real soon.

The Bible Belt was first used to describe the region long before that, 1925 to be exact. It was used derogatorily then as it is now, but didn't include Catholics, which were largely northerners.

Yeah, I assume he's referring to the rise of the Moral Majority movement that occurred at the time.

Do you honestly believe anyone really that mattered really got in bed with Jerry Fallwell? I made fun of said idiot all the damned time and the saying was The Moral Majority is neither.

Are you asking whether or not I think that The Moral Majority made an impact in politics? If so, the answer is unequivocally, "Yes".

*cough* Tipper Gore *cough*

I don't know what connection you're trying to make. How does Tipper Gore cancel out political influence of the so-called moral majority?

@mattbbpl said:

@WhiteKnight77 said:

@mattbbpl said:

@WhiteKnight77 said:

Do you honestly believe anyone really that mattered really got in bed with Jerry Fallwell? I made fun of said idiot all the damned time and the saying was The Moral Majority is neither.

Are you asking whether or not I think that The Moral Majority made an impact in politics? If so, the answer is unequivocally, "Yes".

*cough* Tipper Gore *cough*

I don't know what connection you're trying to make. How does Tipper Gore cancel out political influence of the so-called moral majority?

I take it you have seen this before? That is all her.

@WhiteKnight77 said:

I take it you have seen this before? That is all her.

And the relevance?

@mattbbpl said:

@WhiteKnight77 said:

I take it you have seen this before? That is all her.

And the relevance?

Someone from the left pushing their morality on others.

How does that address what I said in any way?

lol, FOX news isn't even news. ITS junk magazine thats spins facts for their own agenda -- they are a disgrace and a joke. Yes, CNN may spin a bit, but their main method of spreading BS is much different from fox news...CNN just pretends that issues the MASTA doesn't like, don't even exist in the real world. You will never see CNN talk about how corey booker and 12 other DEMS voted against a law allowing re importation of cheap drugs from canada. Nor will you hear about things like income/wealth inequality. Whatever news the rich elite/ billionaires feel comfortable with, CNN will tell fairly truthfully. FOX on the other hand will tell only stories that fit their agenda, and at the same time spin it in their favor.

The micheal flyn story was the worst spin job ive seen from fox news, and its fairly disgusting. How do you even SPIN the fact that micheal flynn was corresponding with higher up russians from the kremlin?? If this were Obamas aid who did what trump is doing, FOX news would have a field day, the entire circus would be banging the drums of conspiracies, and calling for war. They are true trash.

The left and right are 2 different camps of politicians trying to cater to two different demographics.

While correlation does not equate to causation, it is worth noting that ever since the moral majority and then Saint Ronald Reagan the absent minded adapted some of their rhetoric when running. The republican party has become increasingly theocratic.

Of course, this does NOT mean that conservativism == theocracy. In fact, in some european nations, the christian democratic party are left wing. But the thing is, within the american left/right spectrum. The republican party has been courting theocrats for at least 30 years. Just look at all the religious nonsense in the republican party platform.

An amendment to have all lawmakers use the bible as a basis when making new laws?

I cannot help it if you cannot see that the wife of a sitting Vice-President used her position to push her moral agenda which resulted in said warnings being posted on albums and CDs.