Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[/dev/null]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/27/climate_is_unpredictable_weather_you_like_it_or_not_140411.html

[Tiberius]

Florida Republicans see the writing on the wall. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/28/florida-tom-frazer-chief-science-officer-climate-water-quality

On 5/26/2019 at 12:55 PM, KD in CA said:

 

People who are either that ignorant or that manipulative should be outlawed from publishing written works.

It's not ignorant at all. It's human nature. The Founding Fathers knew this. Read Federalist #10, factionalism is a mind numbing phenomena. If the party that has most of the black people in it, GOP voters won't listen to anything they say. 

[row_33]

geez it was cold this morning, have to Liquid Paper that one out of the daily temps.

 

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, row_33 said:

geez it was cold this morning, have to Liquid Paper that one out of the daily temps.

 

Do you know who invented Liquid Paper?...and no, it wasn't Al Gore.

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Do you know who invented Liquid Paper?...and no, it wasn't Al Gore.

 

of course, his mom came up with it as a type of nail polish gadget for the office desk

 

she sold out very well early on and was kept on as an advisor for a princely salary

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

of course, his mom came up with it as a type of nail polish gadget for the office desk

 

she sold out very well early on and was kept on as an advisor for a princely salary

You left out the most important part...who's mom?

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You left out the most important part...who's mom?

 

Mike Nesmith

 

the best interview answer i have heard on the matter was Mike's with Gilbert Gottfried on a podcast a few months ago..

 

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by row_33

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Mike Naismith

 

the best interview answer i have heard on the matter was Mike's with Gilbert Gottfried on a podcast a few months ago..

 

 

Yep...one of only two trivia nuggets that I know. It's also where his money came from to become a music video producer in lieu of reunion touring with the rest of the Monkees.

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Yep...one of only two trivia nuggets that I know. It's also where his money came from to become a music video producer in lieu of reunion touring with the rest of the Monkees.

 

it certainly would have helped after the show was cancelled and before the reincarnation of the band's recordings in the late 80s

 

 

 

older relatives hated Monkees records yet they found the 100% garbage filler on Beach Boys albums to be art....

 

 

[B-Man]

 The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare.

The actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

 

That is, until the NOAA’s statisticians “adjust” the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That’s clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time.

 

So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

 

That’s not what NOAA does.

 

According to the NOAA, the errors aren’t random. They’re systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they’re very fuzzy about why this should be.

 

Far from legitimately “adjusting” anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government’s underlying policies for the better part of two decades.

 

What NOAA does aren’t niggling little changes, either.

 

 

 

Government cooking the books like this would be a major scandal if we had a nonpartisan press.

 

 

 

 

.

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare.

The actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

 

That is, until the NOAA’s statisticians “adjust” the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That’s clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time.

 

So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

 

That’s not what NOAA does.

 

According to the NOAA, the errors aren’t random. They’re systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they’re very fuzzy about why this should be.

 

Far from legitimately “adjusting” anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government’s underlying policies for the better part of two decades.

 

What NOAA does aren’t niggling little changes, either.

 

 

 

Government cooking the books like this would be a major scandal if we had a nonpartisan press.

 

 

 

 

.

 

they have always announced they have to manage the actual data to fit the narrative...

 

seasonally adjusted temperatures is the game

 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare.

The actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

 

That is, until the NOAA’s statisticians “adjust” the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That’s clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time.

 

So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

 

That’s not what NOAA does.

 

According to the NOAA, the errors aren’t random. They’re systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they’re very fuzzy about why this should be.

 

Far from legitimately “adjusting” anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government’s underlying policies for the better part of two decades.

 

What NOAA does aren’t niggling little changes, either.

 

 

 

Government cooking the books like this would be a major scandal if we had a nonpartisan press.

 

 

 

 

.

 

I'll try to explain more later, but for now: this is Holcomb's Arm "rolling 3.5 on a die" level wrong.  

[B-Man]

DAVID HARSANYI: Sorry, Alarmists, Climate Chaos Is Not Here.

 

 “Despite Democrats’ cataclysmal framing of every weather event, Americans are safer than ever.”

It’s true that 2019 has seen a spike in tornadoes, but mostly because 2018 was the first year recorded without a single violent tornado in the United States. Tornadoes killed 10 Americans in 2018, the fewest since we started keeping track of these things in 1875, only four years after the nefarious combustion engine was invented.

 

There has also been a long-term decline in the cost of tornado damage. In 2018, we experienced near-lows in this regard. The only better years were 2017, 2016, and 2015.

 

After a few devastating hurricanes around a decade ago, we were similarly warned that it was a prelude to endless storms and ecological disaster. This was followed by nine years without a single major hurricane in the United States. Or, in other words, six fewer hurricanes than we experienced in 1908 alone.

 

According to the U.S. Natural Hazard Statistics, in fact, 2018 saw below the 30-year average in deaths not only by tornadoes and hurricanes (way under average) but also from heat, flooding, and lighting. We did experience a slight rise in deaths due to cold.

 

Pointing out these sort of things usually elicits the same reaction: Why do you knuckle-dragging troglodytes hate science? Well, because science’s predictive abilities on most things, but especially climate, have been atrocious. But mostly because science is being used as a cudgel to push leftist policy prescriptions without considering economic tradeoffs, societal reality, or morality.

 

 

It’s always about power, except when it’s about money, unless it’s about both.

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

NEWS YOU CAN USE (CLIMATE ALARMISM EDITION):

 

“Statements like the following are increasingly common in popular media, academic journals, and political discourse:

 

“The evidence that anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat to our way of life is incontrovertible.”

 

Not so—not even close.” Marlo Lewis explain why here.

 

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

[/dev/null]

14 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

NEWS YOU CAN USE (CLIMATE ALARMISM EDITION):

 

“Statements like the following are increasingly common in popular media, academic journals, and political discourse:

 

“The evidence that anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat to our way of life is incontrovertible.”

 

Not so—not even close.” Marlo Lewis explain why here.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

WHO’S ANTI-SCIENCE?

 

One of the contemporary Left’s more annoying traits is its insistence on labeling those who disagree with leftist dogma as “anti-science.” This from the people who apparently don’t know about X and Y chromosomes. Or maybe they think an X can “identify” as a Y, and vice versa.

 

Climate hysteria is, of course, the arena where “anti-science” accusations are thrown around most promiscuously. At the same time, advocates of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming consistently refuse to debate CAGW skeptics, which gives you a pretty good idea whose side the science is on.

 

The current edition of the Science and Environmental Policy Project’s The Week That Wasincludes these observations on science and “anti-science.”

 

{snip}

 

Liberals often talk about “science” as though it were a set of approved dogmas. In fact, science is a method.

 

“Climate scientists” seem almost allergic to applying the scientific method to their claims about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Here, as on so many other issues, it is President Trump who is right, and his ostensibly sophisticated critics who are wrong.

[row_33]

27 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Liberals often talk about “science” as though it were a set of approved dogmas. In fact, science is a method.

 

 

 

"science" is what they fakely run to when they find people disagree with their perfect (to them) opinions

 

 

 

[B-Man]

Internet Hilariously Responds to ‘BirthStrikers’ Who Are Avoiding Childbirth Due to Impending Ecological Doom

...............I am in favor of their 'strike'

 

 

 

.

[row_33]

24 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Internet Hilariously Responds to ‘BirthStrikers’ Who Are Avoiding Childbirth Due to Impending Ecological Doom

...............I am in favor of their 'strike'

 

 

 

.

 

wish that strike had started 3 generations earlier for every one of them