Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

NOAA’s climate change science fiction

The environmental intelligence agency ignores satellite data


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the nation’s leading collector of climate data. Every day, NOAA analyzes vast amounts of data to predict changes to our climate, weather, oceans and coasts. The agency also publishes monthly temperature averages across the nation and compares those numbers to historical temperature records.

As the nation’s self-proclaimed authority on “environmental intelligence,” NOAA should be held to the highest scientific standards. This means their conclusions should be objective, independent of political consideration and based on all available sources of information.

NOAA’s top official, Kathryn Sullivan, has described the agency’s role as providing “timely, reliably, and actionable information — based on sound science — every day to millions of Americans.”

In testimony before the House Science Committee, NOAA’s deputy administrator, Manson Brown, made similar remarks, noting the importance of satellite data. He said that NOAA’s ability “to deliver environmental intelligence starts with keeping the pulse of the planet, especially the atmosphere and the ocean, and this is the central capability where space-based assets come into play.” So why does NOAA leave out satellite data when it releases climate projections?

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. This fact is well documented, but has been embarrassing for an administration determined to push through costly environmental regulations.

PHOTOS: Hand cannons: The world's most powerful handguns

Instead, NOAA focused its study on surface temperature monitoring that is often flawed because these sites measure thousands of independent temperature readings and utilize a hodgepodge of different methods that have changed over time. For example, measurements from land-based stations can be skewed because of their location and proximity to surrounding heat-holding asphalt in urban areas.

Satellite data, on the other hand, is highly calibrated and provides complete global coverage. For decades, satellites have been used to monitor the earth and collect information. Satellites measure something extremely important — the deep atmosphere. The temperature readings collected by satellites often differ from ground monitoring stations and have consistently shown much smaller rates of warming. Yet NOAA refuses to incorporate satellite data into its monthly projections that are released to the public. Why?

NOAA appears to pick and choose only data that confirms their bias. NOAA then disseminates this incomplete data to the media who manufacture alarming headlines but ignore the uncertainty of the conclusions.

Earlier this year, NASA issued a news release stating that 2014 was the warmest year on record. Few media acknowledged the footnote: Scientists were only 38 percent sure this was actually correct. That is less than 50-50.

NOAA fully understands margins of error and works with them on a daily basis. But where are these details in their news releases? While NOAA’s monthly projections usually warn of increased warming, they ignore satellite data that refutes their alarmist statements.

The ability to remain independent of political consideration seems like a minimum requirement for an agency that should provide unbiased scientific information. But NOAA’s habit of picking and choosing data raises serious questions about the agency’s independence. In fact, it shreds NOAA’s credibility.

As a self-proclaimed “environmental intelligence agency,” NOAA’s reports should be based only on the best available science that takes into account all sources of data. Unfortunately, NOAA continues to rely upon biased science in pursuit of a predetermined outcome. That’s not good science, it’s science fiction.

This administration is pursuing an extreme political climate change agenda and has made NOAA its accomplice. These are not the actions of an objective agency. NOAA needs to come clean about why it cherry-picked and changed certain data, while ignoring satellite data, to get the results it wanted.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/lamar-smith-noaas-climate-change-science-fiction/

So, not only will there quite likely be thousands of people pardoned on Obama's last day in office, but there are clearly thousands of people such as these in NOAA, who need to be fired with prejudice against their ever holding another government job.

Jeb Hillary wouldn't have fired those people.

Marco Hillary, the Replacement Establishment Man, wouldn't fire those people.

[Spendulus]

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/

It is safe to predict that when 20,000 world leaders, officials, green activists and hangers-on convene in Paris next week for the 21st United Nations climate conference, one person you will not see much quotedis Professor Judith Curry. This is a pity. Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none, and in America she has become a public intellectual. But on this side of the Atlantic, apparently, she is too ‘challenging’. What is troubling about her pariah status is that her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis.

Some consider her a heretic. According to Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a vociferous advocate of extreme measures to prevent a climatic Armageddon, she is ‘anti-science’. Curry isn’t fazed by the slur.



I remember reading ten years ago work by Curry, and what struck me was her ability to look at scientific questions honestly, examining all aspects of an issue.  There wasn't any way to define her as "Warmer" or "Denier."

Of course, in the current mood of desperation on the Warmers, you are either fully with them or you are against them.

This is exactly the Anti-Scientific Method.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

French Police Use Tear Gas at Banned Climate Change Rally in Paris

"French police have used tear gas at a climate change rally in Paris on Sunday, which had earlier been disallowed by the authorities over security concerns after the November 13 deadly attacks that had left 130 people dead."

[hdbuck]

Heh, fun times.

Brandalism: 600 ad takeovers in Paris before the COP21 Climate Conference
http://www.streetartnews.net/2015/11/brandalism-600-ad-takeovers-in-paris.html









PS: from that vid above, the protesters are yelling "des bisous des bisous!" and "on veut faire pipi" ("we want to pee" - as they are being retained by the police)
lmao kids. they surely have no clue about the violence in the world we live in. xD

[hdbuck]

so, about protesting.. effectively.

molotov cocktails!

Why It Works
The reason electric cars suck, which somehow nobody seems to want to mention, is very much related to why the Molotov Cocktail works : the caloric power of gasoline.
In whitey terms it's 47 KiloJoules per gram, but in more practical terms it's as powerful as ten iPad batteries, fully charged. Per gram. A taser delivers ~10 Joules per hit, a Molotov Cocktail delivers ~270`000 Joules per hit, you do the math. How many twenty-seven thousand Taser holding shitheads in combat gearvi does one need to counter one protestor throwing Molotovs ?

So there you go, hit them where it hurts. The Soviet Russian army's main line of offensive bombs are fuel bombs, why do you think that is ? This shit works ; what da police got doesn't.vii

How To Use Them
There are two principal uses for the Molotov Cocktail :

Position interdiction.
The way da police works is that they get orders - because there's a lot of them and none really wanna be there, so they need a boss man to tell them what to do then they all do it. If you notice them forming a line, throw a few cocktails at the ground. They can't stand in fire, and they can't just move because they feel like it, they'll have to get a new order. It's cheaper for you to throw a coupla bottles than it is for them to get new ordersviii, and thus chaos ensues, and thus you win.

Materiel interdiction.
One of those fancy tanks they use costs millions upon millions of dollars, but they can and have been turned off with just a well placed bottle shot. It costs you nothing to get some more straws from Walmart (you're not buying these, are you ?), they can't afford to replace the machinery. This isn't even a matter of budgets or anything, dumbass whitey can write any numbers he wants on paper but it won't produce more machines. Burn them down, let the fatasses walk, see how far that gets them.

In Closing
Here's a quote :

"If you hold a protest and you aren't throwing rocks it will fail. I'm not telling you to throw rocks, I'm explaining why your march won't work.

The reason "peaceful protests" don't work anymore is because now the protests are slower than the media coverage. When they threw the tea in Boston Harbor it was urgent, immediate, and by the time the press could interpret it it had already been digested by the public. But now even before the protest reaches critical mass the media, whose agents outnumber the protestors 100 to 1, has packaged and produced it, like a reality show, and by the time Naomi Klein got there I had already been told to expect someone like her. Do you see? She had already appeared before she got there. Yes, I can take pride in thinking for myself but if I'm going to be honest, all I'm doing is reacting to what I'm told."

He doesn't tell you to throw rocks because he's a chickenshit, pretending to be against "the system" from the inside. Meanwhile on the ground : you did well kicking "the media" out, congrats. Now hit them where it hurts.

Burn that mutha down.

http://trilema.com/2015/a-blast-from-the-past-or-the-molotov-cocktail-guide-this-is-how-you-win/



Now in practice, this happened last year in corsica (france): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMmTnMraLs
Notice the steps: rocks>>gaz>>molotovs>>the police looses it all>>the protesters starts to move forward. ^^

[Spendulus]

so, about protesting.. effectively.

molotov cocktails!

Why It Works
The reason electric cars suck, which somehow nobody seems to want to mention, is very much related to why the Molotov Cocktail works : the caloric power of gasoline.
In whitey terms it's 47 KiloJoules per gram, but in more practical terms it's as powerful as ten iPad batteries, fully charged. Per gram. A taser delivers ~10 Joules per hit, a Molotov Cocktail delivers ~270`000 Joules per hit, you do the math. How many twenty-seven thousand Taser holding shitheads in combat gearvi does one need to counter one protestor throwing Molotovs ?

So there you go, hit them where it hurts. The Soviet Russian army's main line of offensive bombs are fuel bombs, why do you think that is ? This shit works ; what da police got doesn't.vii

How To Use Them
There are two principal uses for the Molotov Cocktail :

Position interdiction.
The way da police works is that they get orders - because there's a lot of them and none really wanna be there, so they need a boss man to tell them what to do then they all do it. If you notice them forming a line, throw a few cocktails at the ground. They can't stand in fire, and they can't just move because they feel like it, they'll have to get a new order. It's cheaper for you to throw a coupla bottles than it is for them to get new ordersviii, and thus chaos ensues, and thus you win.

Materiel interdiction.
One of those fancy tanks they use costs millions upon millions of dollars, but they can and have been turned off with just a well placed bottle shot. It costs you nothing to get some more straws from Walmart (you're not buying these, are you ?), they can't afford to replace the machinery. This isn't even a matter of budgets or anything, dumbass whitey can write any numbers he wants on paper but it won't produce more machines. Burn them down, let the fatasses walk, see how far that gets them.

In Closing
Here's a quote :

"If you hold a protest and you aren't throwing rocks it will fail. I'm not telling you to throw rocks, I'm explaining why your march won't work.

The reason "peaceful protests" don't work anymore is because now the protests are slower than the media coverage. When they threw the tea in Boston Harbor it was urgent, immediate, and by the time the press could interpret it it had already been digested by the public. But now even before the protest reaches critical mass the media, whose agents outnumber the protestors 100 to 1, has packaged and produced it, like a reality show, and by the time Naomi Klein got there I had already been told to expect someone like her. Do you see? She had already appeared before she got there. Yes, I can take pride in thinking for myself but if I'm going to be honest, all I'm doing is reacting to what I'm told."

He doesn't tell you to throw rocks because he's a chickenshit, pretending to be against "the system" from the inside. Meanwhile on the ground : you did well kicking "the media" out, congrats. Now hit them where it hurts.

Burn that mutha down.

http://trilema.com/2015/a-blast-from-the-past-or-the-molotov-cocktail-guide-this-is-how-you-win/



Now in practice, this happened last year in corsica (france): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMmTnMraLs
Notice the steps: rocks>>gaz>>molotovs>>the police looses it all>>the protesters starts to move forward. ^^

If electric cars are so freeking great....

Why aren't all these protesters in golf carts?

[dwma]

Same crowd of pseudo-intellectual gibberlings patting each other on the back for being smart. This thread never changes.

Do you guys think the evidence is growing in your favor in any way?

And trust me on this - I 100% wish you cranks are correct.

[Wilikon]

Same crowd of pseudo-intellectual gibberlings patting each other on the back for being smart. This thread never changes.

Do you guys think the evidence is growing in your favor in any way?

And trust me on this - I 100% wish you cranks are correct.

The evidence of witch hunting and chasing non believers away from the temple, via wish like prayers, is growing...

So far I do not remember deniers patting each other on the back for being smart. The insults and personal attacks seem to always come from people telling everyone else how to follow and not to think, because it is how science works, according to their belief system. We have now people to openly suggest to physically eliminate deniers. How progressive.

http://www.acting-man.com/?p=33302
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/a-murderous-act-the-kill-climate-deniers-theater-project/
http://www.infowars.com/australian-government-funds-play-called-kill-climate-deniers/
http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16/al-gore-sxsw-punish-climate-deniers/



You'll always be welcomed in this thread, you, your amazing contribution and your friends the eliminators.

 

[Wilikon]

The Paris Climate Talks Will Emit 300,000 Tons of CO2, by Our Math. Hope It’s Worth It

THE 2015 PARIS talks (formally known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties and the eleventh session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol—but let’s just call it the Paris talks) are going to draw about 22,000 official attendees.

Official means negotiators, delegates, diplomats, and aides from 195 countries. That does not include the NGOs, businesses, activists, high school students, and many, many journalists (including me) who will be there to influence, capitalize on, or catalog the two week event. Playing it conservative, total attendance will land around 50,000 people.

Those 50,000 people will come from as far as Auckland, New Zealand and as near as Paris itself. If you add up all the Bangkoks, Bermudas, Cape Towns, Sydneys, Santiagos, Samoas, Jakartas, Singapores, and Stockholms in between, the average distance per traveler is about 9,000 miles, round trip.

Those people will arrive on trains, cars, but mostly airplanes. When flown at full capacity (and the airline industry being what it is, and the Paris meetings being what they are, there’s little reason to think the planes will be anything but packed), a Boeing 747 (a happy medium between private jets and bullet trains) gets about 16.5 miles per gallon of jet fuel. Between 50,000 attendees, that’s about 27 million gallons of the stuff.

When burned, every one of those 27 million gallons of jet fuel releases about 21 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Added up, all those planes flying to the Paris climate talks will release about 575 million pounds of CO2.

Alone, that looks like a really big number. Compared to the entire world, which produces about 80 quadrillion pounds of CO2 each year, it’s not much. In fact, all the travel for all the people to and from Paris equals about 22 seconds of global CO2 emissions. Add in two weeks of hotels, taxis, espressos, pastries, and wine toasts, and you can probably tack on another half second or so.

Keep in mind, this is all back of the napkin stuff.1 (If you want something more accurate, the UNFCCC plans to release its own calculations soon.) Not perfect, but a serviceable reminder that these talks are not free in terms of raw emissions.

Which demands the question: Will the trip be worth the gas?


http://www.wired.com/2015/11/the-paris-talks-could-produce-300000-tons-of-co2-hope-theyre-worth-it/

[tvbcof]

...
So far I do not remember deniers patting each other on the back for being smart. ...

To be honest, I do.  Seems that there were some serious high-five's going around when one of those (purported) professors was run off within a few days.  It was a significant and meaningful win, I thought, because it involved the application of actual science and logic to a large degree with relatively little fallback to run-of-the-mill name calling theatrics.  It was pretty interesting to see how little ammo the guy actually had.

[Wilikon]

...
So far I do not remember deniers patting each other on the back for being smart. ...

To be honest, I do.  Seems that there were some serious high-five's going around when one of those (purported) professors was run off within a few days.  It was a significant and meaningful win, I thought, because it involved the application of actual science and logic to a large degree with relatively little fallback to run-of-the-mill name calling theatrics.  It was pretty interesting to see how little ammo the guy actually had.

When a horse has to be put down, it is never a joyous moment. When someone has to be put down with common sense, logic and science, it not a joyous moment. You hope to hear something not just based on blind faith. This is when you just have to let the professionals do their job and watch...

 

[Spendulus]

Same crowd of pseudo-intellectual gibberlings patting each other on the back for being smart. This thread never changes.

Do you guys think the evidence is growing in your favor in any way?

And trust me on this - I 100% wish you cranks are correct.

Pseudo-intellectual?  I haven't seen anyone wanting to discuss application in coding of the Naviar-Stokes in climate models.  Can't recall anyone even looking at statistical dispersion, or discussing the problem of attempting to meld data points for a hundred thousand years at 10 year intervals, with data points for a hundred years at one day intervals.

But I digress needlessly.  Feel free to bring your pseudo-intellectual gibberings.  Just think, they couldn't even be heard in the ocean of baboons you come from.  They will be heard here, and responded to.  Someone might even tell you, "Why not leave the ocean of baboons?"

Why not, indeed?

[notbatman]

The truth is scientists can't even prove the earth is a globe let alone that it's warming.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

The truth is scientists can't even prove the earth is a globe let alone that it's warming.

Did you see this video?

Global warming, Climate change, & Global flooding, only on a Flat Earth

[Spendulus]

The truth is scientists can't even prove the earth is a globe let alone that it's warming.

Measurements of gravity began in the 17th century, using precision pendulums.  These were carried on ships, which led to the discovery that the earth was not a perfect sphere, but had a larger radius near the equator.

[Wilikon]

The truth is scientists can't even prove the earth is a globe let alone that it's warming.

Measurements of gravity began in the 17th century,
using precision pendulums. 
These were carried on ships, which led to the discovery
that the earth was not a perfect sphere,
but had a larger radius
near the equator.

Cool lyrics. Now you need a cool beat to educate the masses...

 

[notbatman]

The truth is scientists can't even prove the earth is a globe let alone that it's warming.

Did you see this video?

Global warming, Climate change, & Global flooding, only on a Flat Earth

We're on a flat surface inside a climate controlled artificial dome, the Sun is 32 miles wide and 3k miles up. This man-made climate change is such a scam, our creators are obviously able to control the climate on a whim.

[Spendulus]

The truth is scientists can't even prove the earth is a globe let alone that it's warming.

Did you see this video?

Global warming, Climate change, & Global flooding, only on a Flat Earth

We're on a flat surface inside a climate controlled artificial dome, the Sun is 32 miles wide and 3k miles up. This man-made climate change is such a scam, our creators are obviously able to control the climate on a whim.

I never thought of this!  If the COFE (Creator of Flat Earth) has a thermostat, which of course he would have, then who could possibly argue that man was in control of the temperature of the Flat?

[Spendulus]

...
So far I do not remember deniers patting each other on the back for being smart. ...

To be honest, I do.  Seems that there were some serious high-five's going around when one of those (purported) professors was run off within a few days.  It was a significant and meaningful win, I thought, because it involved the application of actual science and logic to a large degree with relatively little fallback to run-of-the-mill name calling theatrics.  It was pretty interesting to see how little ammo the guy actually had.

When a horse has to be put down, it is never a joyous moment. When someone has to be put down with common sense, logic and science, it not a joyous moment. You hope to hear something not just based on blind faith. This is when you just have to let the professionals do their job and watch...

 

Here's what it comes down to.  Check out the latest Sci American article, which bluntly admits that what "Deniers" have been saying for 20 years - is RIGHT.  And who do they quote?   Pat Michaels, who was ruthlessly insulted as a Denier (including one entire NYT article by Paul Krugman), fired from at least one job, and who never changed one bit the way he saw the facts.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/


In 1990 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was predicting that if emissions rose in a “business as usual” way, which they have done, then global average temperature would rise at the rate of about 0.3 degree Celsius per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 degree C per decade). In the 25 years since, temperature has risen at about 0.1 to 0.2 degree C per decade, depending on whether surface or satellite data is used. The IPCC, in its most recent assessment report, lowered its near-term forecast for the global mean surface temperature over the period 2016 to 2035 to just 0.3 to 0.7 degree C above the 1986–2005 level. That is a warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degree C per decade, in all scenarios, including the high-emissions ones.

At the same time, new studies of climate sensitivity—the amount of warming expected for a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from 0.03 to 0.06 percent in the atmosphere—have suggested that most models are too sensitive. The average sensitivity of the 108 model runs considered by the IPCC is 3.2 degrees C. As Pat Michaels, a climatologist and self-described global warming skeptic at the Cato Institute testified to Congress in July, certain studies of sensitivity published since 2011 find an average sensitivity of 2 degrees C.

Such lower sensitivity does not contradict greenhouse-effect physics. The theory of dangerous climate change is based not just on carbon dioxide warming but on positive and negative feedback effects from water vapor and phenomena such as clouds and airborne aerosols from coal burning. Doubling carbon dioxide levels, alone, should produce just over 1 degree C of warming. These feedback effects have been poorly estimated, and almost certainly overestimated, in the models.

Here's the proper way to look at this type of matter.  If one or several scientists, however many, put their weight behind a statement of this sort "global average temperature would rise at the rate of about 0.3 degree Celsius per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 degree C per decade)" and if the resulting temperatures are outside the "uncertainty range," they should be fired from their jobs with cause.

The scientists that made the correct predictions should then be promoted.

This is not complicated.

[SgtMoth]

Sean Penn Blames Climate Change Denial on Cult-Like ‘Fox Network Thinking’

Sean Penn is in Paris this week for the big climate change summit, and in an interview he took a swipe at Fox News over widespread climate denial.

Now, apparently Penn doesn’t actually believe “climate skeptics” actually exist. He told Bloomberg, “I think there are people who indulge in a culture of what can be reduced to Fox network thinking. That has nothing to do with the politics that apply to the protection of quality of life in any sense.”

He compared it to someone being “a member of a cult” and said he has no interest in engaging with someone like that...


http://www.mediaite.com/online/sean-penn-blames-climate-change-denial-on-cult-like-fox-network-thinking/


http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-paris-climate-summit-interviews/