Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[SgtMoth]

Nah, but doesn't he have a point that something getting very cold isn't very appropriately named "warming".  Climate change *is* a better word to describe some places getting cold, some places getting warm, etc.  Right?

Since when did bill nye become a climate scientist?  Why aren't these 97% of agreeing scientists holding any kind of summit on this"warming trend?"  Bill should go back to entertaining children.

[Anon136]

words

No It's not like that. As I think all of us can agree that the earth is multiple billions of years old and we believe in evolution. It's not a religious thing and its not a political thing either, and its not about anecdotes. The anecdotes are just here for comedic relief because when you come at it from our perspective they can be funny. We understand that if global warming was real global warming protestors could still be snowed out of their protests. It's just funny to read about it.

The reason we hold the position that we do is scientists spent a great deal of government money in order to create predictive climate models and every single one of the models that has been around long enough to test its predictive capabilities as completely failed to accurately predict the climate. Further this is a fact that no one seems to care about.

In science, you generate a theory and a relevant test and if the theory accurately predicts the outcome of the test than you consider it to be valid. Generally. You need multiple different sorts of ways to test the same theory because you need to coax out the possibility of a false cause and you need peer review and multiple sources performing the same tests with the same results. But basically this is the idea. A theory is considered valid if it is able to make accurate predictions. In climatology for some reason this gets magically turned on its head. The theories are considered a priori valid and the fact that they are unable to make accurate predictions doesn't seem to bother anyone. Except us. We are some sort of super minority that actually gets bothered by this. That's pretty much all it is.

[sed]

Nah, but doesn't he have a point that something getting very cold isn't very appropriately named "warming".  Climate change *is* a better word to describe some places getting cold, some places getting warm, etc.  Right?

Since when did bill nye become a climate scientist?  Why aren't these 97% of agreeing scientists holding any kind of summit on this"warming trend?"  Bill should go back to entertaining children.

When did he stop entertaining children?

[tvbcof]

No It's not like that. As I think all of us can agree that the earth is multiple billions of years old and we believe in evolution. It's not a religious thing and its not a political thing either, and its not about anecdotes. The anecdotes are just here for comedic relief because when you come at it from our perspective they can be funny. We understand that if global warming was real global warming protestors could still be snowed out of their protests. It's just funny to read about it.

The reason we hold the position that we do is scientists spent a great deal of government money in order to create predictive climate models and every single one of the models that has been around long enough to test its predictive capabilities as completely failed to accurately predict the climate. Further this is a fact that no one seems to care about.

In science, you generate a theory and a relevant test and if the theory accurately predicts the outcome of the test than you consider it to be valid. Generally. You need multiple different sorts of ways to test the same hypothesis because you need to coax out the possibility of a false cause fallacy and you need peer review and multiple sources performing the same test with the same results. But basically this is the idea. A theory is considered valid if it is able to make accurate predictions. In climatology for some reason this gets magically turned on its head. The theories are considered a priori valid and the fact that they are unable to make accurate predictions doesn't seem to bother anyone. Except us. We are some sort of super minority that actually gets bothered by this. That's pretty much all it is.

I just want to quote that because I find it especially cogent.  (edit: I'd be inclined to use the words 'theory' and 'hypothesis' slightly differently, but the idea is clear enough and is spot on.)

While I'm here, I would point out that it is a valid argument (to me) that the possibility that 'catastrophic' or at least significantly troubling global climate change still exists even if the models have been proven wrong and even if the various tales of alarm are legitimate concerns that we will feel the effects of at some time in the future.  I personally find this unlikely at this point in my explorations, but it is admittedly somewhat subjective because different things are 'catastrophic' to different people.

The main point I'd like to make is that it is abundantly clear to me that there is a vast amount of exploitation of 'climate science' and it can be attributed almost exclusively to one side; the so-called 'warmists'.  It is similarly clear to me that the objectives of this exploitation transcend the the fields of earth science at all.  This has damaged the credibility of all parties who might have legitimate concerns and has greatly set back any honest and coherent exploration of the subject.

[Anon136]

No It's not like that. As I think all of us can agree that the earth is multiple billions of years old and we believe in evolution. It's not a religious thing and its not a political thing either, and its not about anecdotes. The anecdotes are just here for comedic relief because when you come at it from our perspective they can be funny. We understand that if global warming was real global warming protestors could still be snowed out of their protests. It's just funny to read about it.

The reason we hold the position that we do is scientists spent a great deal of government money in order to create predictive climate models and every single one of the models that has been around long enough to test its predictive capabilities as completely failed to accurately predict the climate. Further this is a fact that no one seems to care about.

In science, you generate a theory and a relevant test and if the theory accurately predicts the outcome of the test than you consider it to be valid. Generally. You need multiple different sorts of ways to test the same hypothesis because you need to coax out the possibility of a false cause fallacy and you need peer review and multiple sources performing the same test with the same results. But basically this is the idea. A theory is considered valid if it is able to make accurate predictions. In climatology for some reason this gets magically turned on its head. The theories are considered a priori valid and the fact that they are unable to make accurate predictions doesn't seem to bother anyone. Except us. We are some sort of super minority that actually gets bothered by this. That's pretty much all it is.

I just want to quote that because I find it especially cogent.  (edit: I'd be inclined to use the words 'theory' and 'hypothesis' slightly differently, but the idea is clear enough and is spot on.)

While I'm here, I would point out that it is a valid argument (to me) that the possibility that 'catastrophic' or at least significantly troubling global climate change still exists even if the models have been proven wrong and even if the various tales of alarm are legitimate concerns that we will feel the effects of at some time in the future.  I personally find this unlikely at this point in my explorations, but it is admittedly somewhat subjective because different things are 'catastrophic' to different people.

Thanks for the kind words. If you don't mind me asking, how might you have phrased it differently?

[tvbcof]

...
In science, you generate a theory and a relevant test and if the theory accurately predicts the outcome of the test than you consider it to be valid.

I just want to quote that because I find it especially cogent.  (edit: I'd be inclined to use the words 'theory' and 'hypothesis' slightly differently, but the idea is clear enough and is spot on.)  ...

Thanks for the kind words. If you don't mind me asking, how might you have phrased it differently?

My understanding/idea of 'how you do science' is:

 - Generate a hypothesis which might explain an observation
 - repeat the above as often as one's strength allows, look for other people's hypotheses, and add new ones in the course of what follows

 - gather as many observations as possible and reject the hypotheses which don't work.  They normally drop like flies.
 - repeat the above until the number of hypothesis are reduced and a relatively small number stand out as especially durable.

At this point you might have something which could approach being called a 'theory.'  Now move more into a phase where you are

 - provoking behaviors designed to produce observations specifically to validate and especially to invalidate the theory.

Not sure how best to phrase that.  It gets even more complex when 'systems' are mixed in instead of 'observation' as is usually the case.  In saying 'generate a theory' to describe the process I just felt that you perhaps downplayed the idea that a 'theory' is normally a pretty late-stage and strong thing.  In retrospect I maybe should not have felt that way.

The main thing is that there is no shame whatsoever in incorrect hypothesis.  By definition most hypothesis are incorrect.  The only 'sin' is NOT having enough incorrect hypotheses.  I have no trouble leaving a problems as a reduced set of hypotheses because the method described above is, while usually enjoyable, fairly protracted and it is sometimes not practical to obtain enough observations.  Or at least high quality ones.

---

I'm sensitive about this (perceived) mis-use of the word 'theory' because I am regularly thought of as a 'conspiracy theorist.'  In reality, it is much more the case that I just don't reject hypothesis unless I can do so fairly unequivocally and don't normally call something a theory while multiple hypotheses remain reasonable in tact.  Thus, for instance, I happen to entertain the hypothesis that ISIS is primarily a CIA invention.  I am not sure of this, and there are other plausible explanations for ISIS's existence in it's present form, but it is one of the hypotheses that best match the observations I've been able to make at this point in time.

To me, rejecting a hypothesis because it is unpopular, unpleasant, carries a particular label, or whatever is just ignorant.  Most 'conspiracy theories' are rejected solely for that reason.  Those theories/hypothesis that then eventually turn out to be almost certainly true (e.g., the NSA monitors most of what we do electronically) catch a lot of people by surprise.

[Wilikon]

White House Announces ‘Goal of Ensuring Climate Smart Citizenry’

The White House Science and Technology Advisor, says an initiative is underway  “with the goal of ensuring a climate smart citizenry in the United States.”

“In December of last year the White House Climate Education and Literacy Initiative was launched--with the goal of ensuring a climate smart citizenry in the United States,” Dr. John Holdren says in a White House video released last week.

“Whenever I can I use opportunities like this ‘Ask Dr. H’ initiative to communicate about climate change and the strong scientific underpinnings of our actions to combat it.”

“Based on our scientific understanding of climate change the administration is continuing to develop and implement a number of policies to cut carbon pollution in America, to prepare for the climate impacts that cannot be avoided, and to work with the international community so best practices for emissions reductions and building resilience are embraced everywhere,” Holdren continues.

A December 2014 White House press release announcing the effort says, “In response to an initial call to action made in October, more than 150 activities, projects, and ideas were submitted by individuals and organizations across the country, from more than 30 states. These included a diverse array of innovative approaches being implemented in K-12 classrooms, on college and university campuses, and in zoos, parks, aquariums, and museums to educate and engage students and citizens of all ages. Today’s launch includes a number of exciting new commitments by Federal agencies and outside groups.”

Among the efforts listed by federal agencies include “leveraging digital games to enhance climate education” by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and using the National Park Service (NPS), “the plan will assist NPS interpretive managers and practitioners in the creation and delivery of effective climate-change messages in the programs and exhibits across all National Parks.”

http://cnsnews.com/blog/eric-scheiner/white-house-announces-goal-ensuring-climate-smart-citizenry

[Wilikon]

Bad news for warmists: Sun has entered 'weakest solar cycle in a century'



The conceit that human production of carbon dioxide is capable of driving the earth’s climate is running smack into the sun. CO2 accounts for a mere 0.039% of the atmosphere, while the sun accounts for 99.86% of all of the mass in our entire solar system. And Ol’ Sol is not taking the insult lightly. Vencore Weather reports:


For the past 5 days, solar activity has been very low and one measure of solar activity – its X-ray output – has basically flatlined in recent days (plot below courtesy NOAA/Space Weather Prediction Center). Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots.



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/bad_news_for_warmists_sun_has_entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century.html

[Wilikon]

...
In science, you generate a theory and a relevant test and if the theory accurately predicts the outcome of the test than you consider it to be valid.

I just want to quote that because I find it especially cogent.  (edit: I'd be inclined to use the words 'theory' and 'hypothesis' slightly differently, but the idea is clear enough and is spot on.)  ...

Thanks for the kind words. If you don't mind me asking, how might you have phrased it differently?

My understanding/idea of 'how you do science' is:

 - Generate a hypothesis which might explain an observation
 - repeat the above as often as one's strength allows, look for other people's hypotheses, and add new ones in the course of what follows

 - gather as many observations as possible and reject the hypotheses which don't work.  They normally drop like flies.
 - repeat the above until the number of hypothesis are reduced and a relatively small number stand out as especially durable.

At this point you might have something which could approach being called a 'theory.'  Now move more into a phase where you are

 - provoking behaviors designed to produce observations specifically to validate and especially to invalidate the theory.

Not sure how best to phrase that.  It gets even more complex when 'systems' are mixed in instead of 'observation' as is usually the case.  In saying 'generate a theory' to describe the process I just felt that you perhaps downplayed the idea that a 'theory' is normally a pretty late-stage and strong thing.  In retrospect I maybe should not have felt that way.

The main thing is that there is no shame whatsoever in incorrect hypothesis.  By definition most hypothesis are incorrect.  The only 'sin' is NOT having enough incorrect hypotheses.  I have no trouble leaving a problems as a reduced set of hypotheses because the method described above is, while usually enjoyable, fairly protracted and it is sometimes not practical to obtain enough observations.  Or at least high quality ones.

---

I'm sensitive about this (perceived) mis-use of the word 'theory' because I am regularly thought of as a 'conspiracy theorist.'  In reality, it is much more the case that I just don't reject hypothesis unless I can do so fairly unequivocally and don't normally call something a theory while multiple hypotheses remain reasonable in tact.  Thus, for instance, I happen to entertain the hypothesis that ISIS is primarily a CIA invention.  I am not sure of this, and there are other plausible explanations for ISIS's existence in it's present form, but it is one of the hypotheses that best match the observations I've been able to make at this point in time.

To me, rejecting a hypothesis because it is unpopular, unpleasant, carries a particular label, or whatever is just ignorant.  Most 'conspiracy theories' are rejected solely for that reason.  Those theories/hypothesis that then eventually turn out to be almost certainly true (e.g., the NSA monitors most of what we do electronically) catch a lot of people by surprise.

hypothesis VS theory, explained to the little people (us all)

[...]
We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge — from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change — faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies these days, you’d think a diabolical agency had put something in the water to make people argumentative.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-science-is-so-hard-to-believe/2015/02/12/2ff8f064-b0a0-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html?postshare=3001424012838912

[Spendulus]

...
In science, you generate a theory and a relevant test and if the theory accurately predicts the outcome of the test than you consider it to be valid.

I just want to quote that because I find it especially cogent.  (edit: I'd be inclined to use the words 'theory' and 'hypothesis' slightly differently, but the idea is clear enough and is spot on.)  ...

Thanks for the kind words. If you don't mind me asking, how might you have phrased it differently?

My understanding/idea of 'how you do science' is:

 - Generate a hypothesis which might explain an observation
 - repeat the above as often as one's strength allows, look for other people's hypotheses, and add new ones in the course of what follows

 - gather as many observations as possible and reject the hypotheses which don't work.  They normally drop like flies.
 - repeat the above until the number of hypothesis are reduced and a relatively small number stand out as especially durable.

At this point you might have something which could approach being called a 'theory.'  Now move more into a phase where you are

 - provoking behaviors designed to produce observations specifically to validate and especially to invalidate the theory.

Not sure how best to phrase that.  It gets even more complex when 'systems' are mixed in instead of 'observation' as is usually the case.  In saying 'generate a theory' to describe the process I just felt that you perhaps downplayed the idea that a 'theory' is normally a pretty late-stage and strong thing.  In retrospect I maybe should not have felt that way.

The main thing is that there is no shame whatsoever in incorrect hypothesis.  By definition most hypothesis are incorrect.  The only 'sin' is NOT having enough incorrect hypotheses.  I have no trouble leaving a problems as a reduced set of hypotheses because the method described above is, while usually enjoyable, fairly protracted and it is sometimes not practical to obtain enough observations.  Or at least high quality ones.

---

I'm sensitive about this (perceived) mis-use of the word 'theory' because I am regularly thought of as a 'conspiracy theorist.'  In reality, it is much more the case that I just don't reject hypothesis unless I can do so fairly unequivocally and don't normally call something a theory while multiple hypotheses remain reasonable in tact.  Thus, for instance, I happen to entertain the hypothesis that ISIS is primarily a CIA invention.  I am not sure of this, and there are other plausible explanations for ISIS's existence in it's present form, but it is one of the hypotheses that best match the observations I've been able to make at this point in time.

To me, rejecting a hypothesis because it is unpopular, unpleasant, carries a particular label, or whatever is just ignorant.  Most 'conspiracy theories' are rejected solely for that reason.  Those theories/hypothesis that then eventually turn out to be almost certainly true (e.g., the NSA monitors most of what we do electronically) catch a lot of people by surprise.

hypothesis VS theory, explained to the little people (us all)

[...]
We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge — from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change — faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies these days, you’d think a diabolical agency had put something in the water to make people argumentative.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-science-is-so-hard-to-believe/2015/02/12/2ff8f064-b0a0-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html?postshare=3001424012838912

Warmers attempted to push a "Theory" of global warming.

If you accept the idea of a global "surface temperature" that can be measured and averaged out, then you certainly can ask if that number is moving up.  Then if you have a very, very good idea of past variability, you can form tests of said hypothesis.

I don't accept the concept of a "global temperature" for a thermodynamics system having solid, liquid, and gaseous components, and unknown amounts of latent heat in these components. 

I also don't agree that past weather and temperatures and climate are known very precisely and accurately through proxies.

However, "climate change" is far worse scientifically.  On the surface this is an attempt to attribute extreme weather events to man's increasing CO2.  Therefore it is survivable in the absence over decades of "global warming."  But it is measurable only from knowledge of past and present climate variability, and only then for like-phenomena.

The questions become things like "are hurricanes getting strong?"   "Are droughts getting more severe?"  "Are floods getting worse?"  In the absence of clear evidence of orders of magnitude increases in the phenomena, all kinds of assertions can be made and discussed.

Rather like an attempt to replace subjective judgement in place of science.  Like, "are blondes prettier?"

[Wilikon]

...
In science, you generate a theory and a relevant test and if the theory accurately predicts the outcome of the test than you consider it to be valid.

I just want to quote that because I find it especially cogent.  (edit: I'd be inclined to use the words 'theory' and 'hypothesis' slightly differently, but the idea is clear enough and is spot on.)  ...

Thanks for the kind words. If you don't mind me asking, how might you have phrased it differently?

My understanding/idea of 'how you do science' is:

 - Generate a hypothesis which might explain an observation
 - repeat the above as often as one's strength allows, look for other people's hypotheses, and add new ones in the course of what follows

 - gather as many observations as possible and reject the hypotheses which don't work.  They normally drop like flies.
 - repeat the above until the number of hypothesis are reduced and a relatively small number stand out as especially durable.

At this point you might have something which could approach being called a 'theory.'  Now move more into a phase where you are

 - provoking behaviors designed to produce observations specifically to validate and especially to invalidate the theory.

Not sure how best to phrase that.  It gets even more complex when 'systems' are mixed in instead of 'observation' as is usually the case.  In saying 'generate a theory' to describe the process I just felt that you perhaps downplayed the idea that a 'theory' is normally a pretty late-stage and strong thing.  In retrospect I maybe should not have felt that way.

The main thing is that there is no shame whatsoever in incorrect hypothesis.  By definition most hypothesis are incorrect.  The only 'sin' is NOT having enough incorrect hypotheses.  I have no trouble leaving a problems as a reduced set of hypotheses because the method described above is, while usually enjoyable, fairly protracted and it is sometimes not practical to obtain enough observations.  Or at least high quality ones.

---

I'm sensitive about this (perceived) mis-use of the word 'theory' because I am regularly thought of as a 'conspiracy theorist.'  In reality, it is much more the case that I just don't reject hypothesis unless I can do so fairly unequivocally and don't normally call something a theory while multiple hypotheses remain reasonable in tact.  Thus, for instance, I happen to entertain the hypothesis that ISIS is primarily a CIA invention.  I am not sure of this, and there are other plausible explanations for ISIS's existence in it's present form, but it is one of the hypotheses that best match the observations I've been able to make at this point in time.

To me, rejecting a hypothesis because it is unpopular, unpleasant, carries a particular label, or whatever is just ignorant.  Most 'conspiracy theories' are rejected solely for that reason.  Those theories/hypothesis that then eventually turn out to be almost certainly true (e.g., the NSA monitors most of what we do electronically) catch a lot of people by surprise.

hypothesis VS theory, explained to the little people (us all)

[...]
We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge — from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change — faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies these days, you’d think a diabolical agency had put something in the water to make people argumentative.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-science-is-so-hard-to-believe/2015/02/12/2ff8f064-b0a0-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html?postshare=3001424012838912

Warmers attempted to push a "Theory" of global warming.

If you accept the idea of a global "surface temperature" that can be measured and averaged out, then you certainly can ask if that number is moving up.  Then if you have a very, very good idea of past variability, you can form tests of said hypothesis.

I don't accept the concept of a "global temperature" for a thermodynamics system having solid, liquid, and gaseous components, and unknown amounts of latent heat in these components. 

I also don't agree that past weather and temperatures and climate are known very precisely and accurately through proxies.

However, "climate change" is far worse scientifically.  On the surface this is an attempt to attribute extreme weather events to man's increasing CO2.  Therefore it is survivable in the absence over decades of "global warming."  But it is measurable only from knowledge of past and present climate variability, and only then for like-phenomena.

The questions become things like "are hurricanes getting strong?"   "Are droughts getting more severe?"  "Are floods getting worse?"  In the absence of clear evidence of orders of magnitude increases in the phenomena, all kinds of assertions can be made and discussed.

Rather like an attempt to replace subjective judgement in place of science.  Like, "are blondes prettier?"

Warmist's answer: "Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeeeaahh!!!"

[Spendulus]

....
The questions become things like "are hurricanes getting strong?"   "Are droughts getting more severe?"  "Are floods getting worse?"  In the absence of clear evidence of orders of magnitude increases in the phenomena, all kinds of assertions can be made and discussed.

Rather like an attempt to replace subjective judgement in place of science.  Like, "are blondes prettier?"



Warmist's answer: "Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeeeaahh!!!"

Right.  And we could devise a study to determine "if blondes were prettier."  But we'd be moving into measuring subjective data such as feelings, instead of objective data such as temperatures.

Therefore the move to "climate change" from "global warming" does seem to be demonstrably anti-scientific.

[Wilikon]

....
The questions become things like "are hurricanes getting strong?"   "Are droughts getting more severe?"  "Are floods getting worse?"  In the absence of clear evidence of orders of magnitude increases in the phenomena, all kinds of assertions can be made and discussed.

Rather like an attempt to replace subjective judgement in place of science.  Like, "are blondes prettier?"



Warmist's answer: "Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeeeaahh!!!"

Right.  And we could devise a study to determine "if blondes were prettier."  But we'd be moving into measuring subjective data such as feelings, instead of objective data such as temperatures.

Therefore the move to "climate change" from "global warming" does seem to be demonstrably anti-scientific.

Demonstrating if blondes are responsible for climate change, more than brunettes are for global warming, is something I might be willing to dig deeper, for the purpose of moving from the subjective to the objective...

[Spendulus]

....
The questions become things like "are hurricanes getting strong?"   "Are droughts getting more severe?"  "Are floods getting worse?"  In the absence of clear evidence of orders of magnitude increases in the phenomena, all kinds of assertions can be made and discussed.

Rather like an attempt to replace subjective judgement in place of science.  Like, "are blondes prettier?"



Warmist's answer: "Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeeeaahh!!!"

Right.  And we could devise a study to determine "if blondes were prettier."  But we'd be moving into measuring subjective data such as feelings, instead of objective data such as temperatures.

Therefore the move to "climate change" from "global warming" does seem to be demonstrably anti-scientific.

Demonstrating if blondes are responsible for climate change, more than brunettes are for global warming, is something I might be willing to dig deeper, for the purpose of moving from the subjective to the objective...

SgtMoth may have a say in this.

[hdbuck]

Can Russia control the weather? Climate researcher says CIA fears hostile nations are triggering floods and droughts

> CIA chiefs fear hostile nations are trying to manipulate the world’s weather
> Academic has told of mysterious phone call asking whether foreign countries could be triggering droughts or flooding
> CIA is believed to have helped fund a major report into geoengineering

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2954933/Can-Russia-control-weather-Climate-researcher-says-CIA-fears-hostile-nations-triggering-floods-droughts.html

[Wilikon]

Can Russia control the weather? Climate researcher says CIA fears hostile nations are triggering floods and droughts

> CIA chiefs fear hostile nations are trying to manipulate the world’s weather
> Academic has told of mysterious phone call asking whether foreign countries could be triggering droughts or flooding
> CIA is believed to have helped fund a major report into geoengineering

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2954933/Can-Russia-control-weather-Climate-researcher-says-CIA-fears-hostile-nations-triggering-floods-droughts.html

One of this day some fool will believe that and strikes to bring the rain back...

[Wilikon]

Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA






Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.


@caerbannog666 expect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rise — Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 20, 2015


Rohrabacher serves as the vice chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA and other agencies that monitor the Earth’s climate.

Rohrabacher has long been critical of the theory of man-made global warming. Lately, the California Republican has criticizing NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for allegedly tampering with temperature data to create an artificial warming trend. Such data is then used to justify regulations aimed at curbing fossil fuel use and other industrial activities.


@grngamine journalist investigation shows records of various weather stations altered by AGW advocates to make it appear to be warming. — Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 19, 2015
 

@caerbannog666 U seem unaware of latest revelation of data manipulation. NASA reported higher temp than what was record at weather stations — Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 19, 2015


Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.

“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”

For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.

Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.

“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.

“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”

NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.

“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.

Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.

But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”

“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.

UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.

“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”



http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa/

[BitMos]

data tempering = lies = jail = no more lies.

but I forget they are billionaires (in ctrl+p and then the assets they bought with those freshly legal tender notes), and in the USA it means IMMUNITY (proof gates want to overthrow the us gov!!!).

[notbatman]

Would NASA lie? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH LOL

[hdbuck]

Can Russia control the weather? Climate researcher says CIA fears hostile nations are triggering floods and droughts

> CIA chiefs fear hostile nations are trying to manipulate the world’s weather
> Academic has told of mysterious phone call asking whether foreign countries could be triggering droughts or flooding
> CIA is believed to have helped fund a major report into geoengineering

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2954933/Can-Russia-control-weather-Climate-researcher-says-CIA-fears-hostile-nations-triggering-floods-droughts.html

One of this day some fool will believe that and strikes to bring the rain back...

eh if this leads climatists to actually stop their BS..