Re: IPCC report warns rapid changes needed to stem climate change

From	benj <benj.fake@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics, talk.politics.guns, alt.checkmate
Subject	Re: IPCC report warns rapid changes needed to stem climate change
Date	2018-10-12 17:18 -0400
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<ppr33a$1d7c$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <KdJvD.75683$6y.68884@fx09.iad> <XnsA978F02E9E871greyghost471bazinga@85.214.115.223> <vX3wD.55799$292.33153@fx21.iad> <ppqj68$ih8$2@gioia.aioe.org> <lD4wD.248201$HK2.64935@fx08.iad>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/12/2018 1:13 PM, Lunar Opticfibre wrote:
> On 10/12/2018 10:47 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 10/12/2018 12:27 PM, Lunar Opticfibre wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2018 9:36 PM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>>>> Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote in 
>>>> news:KdJvD.75683$6y.68884
>>>> @fx09.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/2018 4:31 AM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in 
>>>>>> news:ppijbi$1kvl$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/9/2018 1:41 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change,
>>>>>>>>>> experts warn:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-
>>>> report-
>>>>>>>>>> wxc/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you missed this:
>>>>>>>>> <http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-
>>>> temperature-d
>>>>>>>>> ata-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean
>>>>>>>>> temperatures from as far as 100km inland The only explanation that
>>>>>>>>> could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for
>>>>>>>>> Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's one of my favorite parts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten 
>>>>>>>> in an
>>>>>>>> attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are
>>>>>>>> necessary, these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers do
>>>>>>>> need to move, but corrections don't have to treat old sites as if
>>>>>>>> they were always surrounded by concrete and bricks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the
>>>> site
>>>>>>>> "ages" buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air
>>>>>>>> conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement
>>>>>>>> thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each
>>>>>>>> separate national meteorology centre compares both sites for a 
>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>> and figures out the temperature difference between them. Then they
>>>>>>>> adjust the readings from the old locations down to match the new
>>>>>>>> ones. The problem is that the algorithms also slice right back
>>>>>>>> through the decades cooling all the older original readings - even
>>>>>>>> readings that were probably taken when the site was just a
>>>> paddock.Ã‚
>>>>>>>> In this way the historic past is rewritten to be colder than it
>>>>>>>> really was, making recent warming look faster than it really was.
>>>>>>>> Thousands of men and women trudged through snow, rain and mud to
>>>> take
>>>>>>>> temperatures that a computer "corrected" a century later."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Further let's not forget the recent episode where a major amount of
>>>>>>>> the raw data was thrown away in the trash because the "normalized
>>>>>>>> data" (also known as manipulated data) is all that's needed 
>>>>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if something like this were to occur to the 'normalized data' it
>>>>>>>> would invalidate everything collected and would be IMPOSSIBLE to
>>>>>>>> recover from because we now long have the manipulated data to refer
>>>>>>>> back to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then we have cases in which climate organizations manipulate the
>>>> data
>>>>>>>> in order to maintain this hoax, and it's not the first time that
>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> been done or even been exposed being done by the same organization.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's bad enough that political organizations (Like IPCC) have been
>>>>>>> spinning yarns but you also have official government organizations
>>>>>>> manipulating data for years. Not only have low-reading stations been
>>>>>>> closed, and a construction creating Urban heat islands ignored but
>>>>>>> Actual historical GISS has been slowly "adjusted" without
>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>> This is pure fraud. Probably a result of people using their OWN GISS
>>>>>>> data to show climate change assertions are completely incompatible
>>>>>>> with their OWN historical temperature data. (Like say from 1940-1970
>>>>>>> when CO2 went UP and Temperature went DOWN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The climate scam is a HUGE black eye on science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corrupting science for politics is a crime against humanity and 
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be punished as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> After I get me lucky charms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you think it's perfectly ok to corrupt science for politics? 
>>>
>>> I think that's a vague question without context.
>>
>> I think that's an illiterate response without any merit.
>> Global warming is more than sufficient context.
> 
> Why should scientists uphold the highest levels of morality
> while hucksters abound telling lies and selling junk?

Um, because it's part of the scientific method while hucksters have 
their own "code of honor" among thieves.

Thread

csiph-web