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

From	"Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net>
Newsgroups	sci.physics, talk.politics.guns, alt.checkmate
Subject	Re: IPCC report warns rapid changes needed to stem climate change
Date	2018-10-09 01:41 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<pphguj$9bt$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<ppfu4t$16s2$2@gioia.aioe.org> <3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

"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-data-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.  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.

>
> And this:
> <https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/07/damning-audit-climate-change-scare-based-on-unreliable-data/>
> "Governments have had 25 years to check the data on which they've been
> spending billions of dollars. And they haven't done so once."
>
>
> IOW: The AGW scam relies on smoke and mirrors. 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Thread

csiph-web