Global Warming

Have they been fudging the climate change numbers or not?

 

What do you mean by fudging? Do they correct for anomolies in the data? Yes. Do they go "Shit, we predicted a .01 degree increase and we don't see it, we better up the temps!" ?

No, I don't believe that for an instant. Because it isn't just NOAA that is showing climate change. All weather agencies in the world are showing it. So either it is a NOAA hoax, a Chinese hoax (per our President), an Illuminati hoax or it is actually true.

 

So, no?

Keep our President out of this, Hillary.

 

I clearly said "No."

And did or did not the President say "It is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese"? So is it NOAA or China? Or the EU? I am using our President to show that there are so many conspiracy theories out there that you cannot keep them straight. In which case, the easiest and best thing to say is "Huh, maybe it is just true."

Here is the issue: don't adjust the data because of anomalous readings or changes in the stations and people go "Faulty data, you have a weather station here or here or here and of course it is going to be hot". Adjust the data for these anomalies and you get "Of course it shows warming, you are adjusting the data."

It is a no win situation. So many people have it in their head it is false, for one reason or another, and thus they pick and choose, sift through the data looking for something that can in any way support their pre-supposed idea. And that is not science.

Yes, I understand that the scientists can have a pre-supposed idea of warming, and that is true. And it is something that has to be watched and kept in check. Humans are human. But it has been vetted by many scientific fields, not just climatologists. And a scientist could make a huge name for himself if he could actually show that it isn't happening, with definitive proof.

And no need for the name calling.

 

Who is fudging the birds, flowers, fish, and insects? The natural world is observably responding to this trend. Ask a farmer in Georgia about climate change and he says it is a hoax. Ask him about how many growing days he gets and how his summer crops are fairing, and he talks about how things have changed.

I don't get the disconnect. Like coal miners who complain about alternative energy funding but support fracking. Tracking killed coal, not solar or the EPA.

 

The climate is definitely changing. I'm 100% sure humans have screwed it up. The degree that we've screwed it up has become insanely politicized to the point where no one listens.

 

It is minor in the short term and eventually catastrophic. It is exactly the kind of problem we suck at collectively addressing.

 

If one of the top two greenhouse gas emitting countries drastically changed course and significantly improved but the other one (China) did not ... would it make a difference? Serious question. Not being a smart ass...I know very little about climate change.

 

Not true. We've became insanely more efficient and making enormous strides through technology.

 

Without a doubt it would. By the way, china has done a lot more in 2 years to address this. They're the biggest emitter, but the world leader in solar generation. 8 years of trump and we will overtake their emissions

 

With one fourth their pop

 

Annual temp this year was equal to that of 1998 which was our last very strong El Nino.

 

Where did you get this? 2016 was the hottest year on record, and according to a quick search was .31 degrees warmer on average than 1998.

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/

 

Well, I will just leave this graph from the webpage you linked and is used as evidence for your argument and will walk away.

 

I'm not sure what twisted mental machinations are required to make that anything but a positive trend even by that ilk's own metrics.

 

I could not have more thoroughly or consistently trusted your arguments on climate change, many times without so much as a followup question.

I'm not asking you for stats, here. I'm neither asking for a lecture nor a debate.

I'm asking if some scientifically reputable organization has fudged, falsified, amplified, muffled, erroneously accentuated, intentionally hid, or otherwise failed to fully report the results of the scientific findings as it relates to climatology and/or specifically climate change.

If yes, then who, when, to what degree and why?

 

yes.

I don't have time or the encyclopedic knowledge of all claims to do that.


There can be wrong calls, there can be calls that later more information changed, and there can be outright deception. The vast, vast majority of the claims regarding climate change are absolutely true to the best ability of humans to know anything. I'm talking about NASA, NOAA, the IPCC. If anything, there is reason to believe their warnings have been too conservative for scenarios 100 years and on out.

The majority (perhaps not vast majority depending on how one defines the group) of claims that this isn't happening are absolute deliberate falsehoods akin to the tobacco industry's successful decades of avoiding linking cigarettes to cancer, when scientifically it was known long before. Hell, it is actually a lot of the same lobbying and law firms. It's the same strategies.

There are a handful of credible skeptics, but even then they are often misrepresented in what they are exactly saying.

It is a hell of a conspiracy that could think to line up biology, chemistry, physics, meteorology, and pretty much every other hard science to come up with a consistent set of observations relative to increasing global temperature.

 

Where did I say it wasn't a positive trend? I said this years global temp, due to a large Nino...was the same as the global temp in 1998 when we had our last large Nino.

 

Riiiiiiiight.