Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Hmm... an "independent study" by global warming "climate change scientists" isn't so independent.  I'm sure that $45,000,000.00 in grants with the possibility of future grants had nothing to do with their "findings".

Quote:Hmm... an "<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/'>independent study</a>" by <del>global warming</del> "climate change scientists" isn't so independent. I'm sure that $45,000,000.00 in grants with the possibility of future grants had nothing to do with their "findings".

You do know how college works, right? Most scientific research is funded by grants. So by your logic, all science is bunk?

Quote:I'll just leave <a class="bbc_url" href='http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/'>this here</a>.


It seems that the scientists at NOAA needed to "adjust" the data.

Don't you find it disconcerting that the only place you can find this tripe are rightwing mouthpieces?


I mean, I get man. I really do. You are a conservative. You vote republican, always have. Identified as a republican for 30 odd years probably. Part of who you are. Believe in god, small government and rugged individualism. Never steered you wrong before.


I get all that.


But at some point you have to be the bigger man and understand that the Republican Party simply took a bad line on this. You can't deny climate science any more than you can computer science. They will have to back track at some point as we are beginning to see.


Take a step back and think about why the Republican Party might be doing what they are doing. Who they represent. What solutions there aren't.


And it's not like the democrats are actually doing anything about it. They are just as bad but will at least acknowledge the problem. It's good cop bad cop and the republicans are the bad cop.


At the end of the day tho, we must speak truth to power. That's the point. Right now they want us divided and conquered, which we are.

Quote:You do know how college works, right? Most scientific research is funded by grants. So by your logic, all science is bunk?

 

Of course I know how research is funded.  However, when it comes to providing "data" for grants perhaps the "data" gets skewed and/or manipulated.  In this case it seems that after the grants were given, the data didn't support future research, so the "data" was "manipulated".  That way they can get future "grants".  Just follow the money.

Quote:Oh wait, that's just pseudo science you are posting.

 

I posted a graph linked to NOAA's own website. Glad to know you agree that NOAA performs pseudo science.

Quote:Don't you find it disconcerting that the only place you can find this tripe are rightwing mouthpieces?


I mean, I get man. I really do. You are a conservative. You vote republican, always have. Identified as a republican for 30 odd years probably. Part of who you are. Believe in god, small government and rugged individualism. Never steered you wrong before.


I get all that.


But at some point you have to be the bigger man and understand that the Republican Party simply took a bad line on this. You can't deny climate science any more than you can computer science. They will have to back track at some point as we are beginning to see.


Take a step back and think about why the Republican Party might be doing what they are doing. Who they represent. What solutions there aren't.


And it's not like the democrats are actually doing anything about it. They are just as bad but will at least acknowledge the problem. It's good cop bad cop and the republicans are the bad cop.


At the end of the day tho, we must speak truth to power. That's the point. Right now they want us divided and conquered, which we are.

 

First of all, I expected this argument from people like you.  Just because the initial source of the article comes from a right leaning website, it's discarded as "tripe".

 

Second of all, I lean conservative but don't identify myself as one.  I have voted for both republican and (shocker) democrats during my lifetime and still do.  I evaluate candidates by looking at their history and points of view, then make my decision (I know, un-heard of in most political circles).  Yes, as of matter of fact I do believe in God (had a catholic upbringing if it matters, though I don't participate in the faith any longer) and I do believe in rugged individualism.

 

Third, you can't compare "climate science" to computer science.  The two are very different things.  In a nutshell, computer science is absolute.  Everything is "true" or "false", and "1" or a "0".  Climate science is not absolute, it's merely a theory.

Quote:First of all, I expected this argument from people like you.  Just because the initial source of the article comes from a right leaning website, it's discarded as "tripe".

 

Second of all, I lean conservative but don't identify myself as one.  I have voted for both republican and (shocker) democrats during my lifetime and still do.  I evaluate candidates by looking at their history and points of view, then make my decision (I know, un-heard of in most political circles).  Yes, as of matter of fact I do believe in God (had a catholic upbringing if it matters, though I don't participate in the faith any longer) and I do believe in rugged individualism.

 

Third, you can't compare "climate science" to computer science.  The two are very different things.  In a nutshell, computer science is absolute.  Everything is "true" or "false", and "1" or a "0".  Climate science is not absolute, it's merely a theory.

I just want to point out you rejected links I gave you in another thread solely based on them being liberal sites. Does that make you people like him?

Quote:Glad you asked.

 

There was a major adjustment to the temperature records between 1940 and now. The difference is all in the adjustment. This is from NOAA:

 




Temperatures are adjusted to give more warming. 

<div> 
The state high temperature records are mostly in the 1930s. 

 

 

</div>

 

 

So this graph shows that warming is increasing and has been increasing for a prolonged period of time?  I'm not sure I understand this graph.  How is this making your case?

 

Temperatures are adjusted to give more warming?  What does that even mean?  You'll have to explain that one to me in a better manner.

 

Lastly, I checked my state (New Mexico's) highs.  In June, the record temps are mostly in the last 20 years...  So I'm not sure what state you are talking about.  But it ain't NM!

Quote:Of course I know how research is funded.  However, when it comes to providing "data" for grants perhaps the "data" gets skewed and/or manipulated.  In this case it seems that after the grants were given, the data didn't support future research, so the "data" was "manipulated".  That way they can get future "grants".  Just follow the money.

This whole idea that scientist are just out for the money doesn't make any sense. If money was their motivation, they would have chosen a more lucrative profession, like banking or finance. No one becomes a scientist to make money.


If you want to follow the money, don't follow that tiny trickle of scientific research grants and ignore the gushing fountains of money in the fossil fuel industry. Compare one week of revenues at Exxon to all the climate change related research grants in the entire world. If you want to follow the money, follow the really big money.

Quote:So this graph shows that warming is increasing and has been increasing for a prolonged period of time?  I'm not sure I understand this graph.  How is this making your case?

 

Temperatures are adjusted to give more warming?  What does that even mean?  You'll have to explain that one to me in a better manner.

 

Lastly, I checked my state (New Mexico's) highs.  In June, the record temps are mostly in the last 20 years...  So I'm not sure what state you are talking about.  But it ain't NM!

 

That graph shows the increase in the discrepancy between the real numbers and the adjusted final numbers over time. The reason it goes UP is because the scientists keep adjusting the numbers further and further up away from the actual number recorded to produce the "fact" that the globe is increasing in temperature. Like he said: the difference isn't in the recorded temps, its in the adjustments made afterward.

Here's an explanation.

Quote:That graph shows the increase in the discrepancy between the real numbers and the adjusted final numbers over time. The reason it goes UP is because the scientists keep adjusting the numbers further and further up away from the actual number recorded to produce the "fact" that the globe is increasing in temperature. Like he said: the difference isn't in the recorded temps, its in the adjustments made afterward.

Have you made any effort to find an explanation as to why past temperatures get adjusted?


I think if someone told me that past temperatures were getting adjusted, before I went and posted about how scientists are cooking the books, I would go and look for an explanation from the people who are doing the adjusting.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/'>http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/</a>


If you find an inherent bias in the data, it is a scientist's duty to make an adjustment. For example, if a large number of observers change from afternoon temperature readings to morning temperature readings, the data will be biased and need to be adjusted.


I realize that just as soon as you read something that confirms your position, there is a temptation to immediately start yelling about how scientists are cooking the books, without going any further, and that is because your main motivation is not to find the truth, but to win the argument.

Quote:So this graph shows that warming is increasing and has been increasing for a prolonged period of time?  I'm not sure I understand this graph.  How is this making your case?

 

Temperatures are adjusted to give more warming?  What does that even mean?  You'll have to explain that one to me in a better manner.

 

Lastly, I checked my state (New Mexico's) highs.  In June, the record temps are mostly in the last 20 years...  So I'm not sure what state you are talking about.  But it ain't NM!

 

1. The graph is of the adjustments NOAA made to the raw measurements. So what "is increasing and has been increasing for a prolonged  period of time" are the fudge factors NOAA adds to the raw numbers.


 

2. Temperatures before 1960 are adjusted down. Temperatures after 1960 are adjusted up. That creates an appearance of warming.


 

3. I'm talking about all-time temperature records for each state, not records for individual dates and/or at individual sites. I generally don't like to reference Wiki for controversial topics, but in this case they have a very readable table of the correct numbers.


 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_...e_extremes

Quote:This whole idea that scientist are just out for the money doesn't make any sense. If money was their motivation, they would have chosen a more lucrative profession, like banking or finance. No one becomes a scientist to make money.


If you want to follow the money, don't follow that tiny trickle of scientific research grants and ignore the gushing fountains of money in the fossil fuel industry. Compare one week of revenues at Exxon to all the climate change related research grants in the entire world. If you want to follow the money, follow the really big money.

Very well put. I can't agree with you more.


Here's what I find fascinating: we are to ignore science because the scientists get grants and work at universities making a pittance when compared to the amount of money the scientists who are hired by a multi billion dollar oil industry. Yet those oil industry scientists are not questioned in regards to their motivations.


If you are to say follow the money, you should follow all the money. Not just the money that validates your preconceived view.

Quote:1. The graph is of the adjustments NOAA made to the raw measurements. So what "is increasing and has been increasing for a prolonged  period of time" are the fudge factors NOAA adds to the raw numbers.


 
2. Temperatures before 1960 are adjusted down. Temperatures after 1960 are adjusted up. That creates an appearance of warming.


 
3. I'm talking about all-time temperature records for each state, not records for individual dates and/or at individual sites. I generally don't like to reference Wiki for controversial topics, but in this case they have a very readable table of the correct numbers.


 
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes</a>

Tell me, what is the reason for the adjustments, according to the people who are doing the adjusting?

Quote:1. The graph is of the adjustments NOAA made to the raw measurements. So what "is increasing and has been increasing for a prolonged period of time" are the fudge factors NOAA adds to the raw numbers.


2. Temperatures before 1960 are adjusted down. Temperatures after 1960 are adjusted up. That creates an appearance of warming.


3. I'm talking about all-time temperature records for each state, not records for individual dates and/or at individual sites. I generally don't like to reference Wiki for controversial topics, but in this case they have a very readable table of the correct numbers.


<a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes</a>

Thanks. Ok, I understand the graph now. I also skimmed the wiki site.


So you provided the graph and now I understand the graph. The question is why were the adjustments made?

Quote:This whole idea that scientist are just out for the money doesn't make any sense. If money was their motivation, they would have chosen a more lucrative profession, like banking or finance. No one becomes a scientist to make money.


If you want to follow the money, don't follow that tiny trickle of scientific research grants and ignore the gushing fountains of money in the fossil fuel industry. Compare one week of revenues at Exxon to all the climate change related research grants in the entire world. If you want to follow the money, follow the really big money.

 

Scientists become scientists because they find science more pleasurable than banking or finance. That does not mean that they are willing to risk their faculty or research position by taking an opposing view on a subject. A scientist can lose his job because he didn't get grants. He can lose grants because the reviewers didn't agree with his position on the subject. Scientists are human beings. They have mortgages. Their wives want nice things. Their kids need braces.


 

Oil money is not threatened by Global Warming policies. Oil companies make most of their donations on this topic to believers. Follow the actual money, not what the left wing claims. 



https://gcep.stanford.edu/about/sponsors.html


 

Quote:Tell me, what is the reason for the adjustments, according to the people who are doing the adjusting?

 

Go back and read my previous post.

Quote:Thanks. Ok, I understand the graph now. I also skimmed the wiki site.


So you provided the graph and now I understand the graph. The question is why were the adjustments made?

 

Go back and re-read my previous post.

Quote:Go back and read my previous post.

I don't see the answer. Which post are you referring to?


Here's your answer, by the way.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/'>http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/</a>

Quote:First of all, I expected this argument from people like you. Just because the initial source of the article comes from a right leaning website, it's discarded as "tripe".


Second of all, I lean conservative but don't identify myself as one. I have voted for both republican and (shocker) democrats during my lifetime and still do. I evaluate candidates by looking at their history and points of view, then make my decision (I know, un-heard of in most political circles). Yes, as of matter of fact I do believe in God (had a catholic upbringing if it matters, though I don't participate in the faith any longer) and I do believe in rugged individualism.


Third, you can't compare "climate science" to computer science. The two are very different things. In a nutshell, computer science is absolute. Everything is "true" or "false", and "1" or a "0". Climate science is not absolute, it's merely a theory.

That last sentence your mind made up to allow your preconceived conclusion to remain valid. But you know it's not true.