Fabrication of data
This is an article from Tony Heller's "Real Science" blog. His historical research shows that meteorological data is being adjusted to match theory. The adjustments are not only to the current data, where readings are fabricated to create data for weather stations that are not reporting or that do not exist, but also to historical data, supposedly to correct for inaccuracies in readings of the past 130 years.
There is no scientific basis for corrections to historical data, because the work that was done in the past included discussions of methods for proper measurement and examination of the accuracy obtained.
There is no scientific basis for corrections to historical data, because the work that was done in the past included discussions of methods for proper measurement and examination of the accuracy obtained.
Here is the IPCC's mandate:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation."
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/
It's not about whether we cause climate change, but instead what should be done. The UN claims it's too late for thinking and nay-saying. We must act NOW! (Anyone in the way gets the "Alinsky" treatment.)
There may be some win in that while part of the feds are shutdown, like be somewhat more pleasant for some - but it is usually short lived (1 week or so) and everyone just gets paid a bit later for being away from work (but "on standby").
Not what I would call a shutdown - but that is what the press proclaims it is. I would just call it extra paid vacation - and their way to a full pension after 20-years, and full healthcare.
Years ago, I was part of the Pentagon "Weather War" studies. We were trying to determine if it would be possible to cause favorable weather events even briefly. We looked at creating fog conditions, precipitation on demand, and at the extreme, triggering or suppressing high velocity wind events. The materials and logistics quickly became titanic in scope, involving trillions of tons of chemicals for limited effect with a questionable probability of success. I also assisted in hurricane studies, where I learned that hurricane Camille (which I experienced in 1969) released over 200 megatons of energy during the brief time it was over the Gulf coast.
Those experiences convinced me that it's pretty arrogant to envision any human action short of a major nuclear exchange having more than a very minor effect on the world climate.
Yes.
Jan
I also had a discussion with my brother who is in academia essentially (MD PhD) in which he brought up all the nonsense environmental arguments including the last fall back the precautionary principle. I did not know that had named it at that time. The precautionary principle says if you are driving blind down the road you need to take a left turn because the road might turn left and if you do not turn left now it will be too late. It took me about a year to convince my brother and my dad. To his credit my dad (MD) took the time to research it when I was adamant that GW was nonsense - he was in his 70s at the time.
1. Viking warm period, exploration of new world
2. Saying that "Science is Settled"
3. Calling skeptics "Deniers" (Godwin's Law)
Between the 900's and 1300's the temperature in Europe rose higher than the predicted cataclismic musings of today, the Dark Ages ended and art, music, science, and literature flourished as it had not not since the days of Rome or since.
As to the Global Change (they can't make up their collective mind) concensus scientists; the concensus was: the Earth was flat, the Earth was the center of the Universe, and the Earth was only 5000 years old, those believing otherwise were excommunicated, forced to recant or burned as heretics.
Anthony Watts tossed Tony Heller ("Steven Goddard") off WUWT. At least three of Anthony's good friends are trojan horses, supposed sceptics who make sure that certain material gets censored. Each protects a particular pillar of Global Warming, such as unchanging sun, well-mixed and adjusted CO2, and acceptance of the necessity of "some" adjustments to temperature data. Anthony probably should be regarded as "controlled opposition" even though it's unlikely Anthony knows he is.
In particular the 21-part treatise by her husband David Evans:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-...
We also see and have documented how they have moved thermometers into direct sunlight and into citys (heat islands). They also have tried to use digital thermometers which they say are more accurate...somehow, I don't think so. We've always used mercury and whether accurate or not (who knows) it was a standard across the board...now we have a mix.
A great resource is also adapt 2030 on youtube. This person has done some great detective work. He is in the coffee distribution business and knows what the temperature trends are and also sees weather and patterns elsewhere in the world that the lamestream is not reporting. Check this one out: https://youtu.be/_I_lsZCAWi4
.
.
and others. . reprehensible. -- j
.
These so-called climate change alarmists who call themselves scientists have been found now on numerous occasions of abandoning the empirical method, cheating on designing testing protocols and just about every other form of Scientific Malpractice.
The question is why? The answer is really quite simple being that if you looked at who is paying these scientists, almost to a one, you will find that they (who live and die) are the recipients of government grants. The government in the industrialized nations at least are the one's paying the lion's share of this research.
Therefore, since governments have so much invested (including pushing treaties and paying off liberal industries) in supporting the Climate Change/Global Warming hyperbole, that they can only win if their stated and committed goals are met. Hence the reliance on a bunch of "scientists" that are more interested in making their respective governments happy, thus ensuring an endless stream of "research" dollars keep coming.
It is pretty easy to set something you want to show as scientific fact just by altering the protocols, using garbage computer models (the basis of the research) and throwing out any datum that does not support your theories.
Hope that helps!
The more fool you the public.
Nothing new there ....
Just the same closed minds that will elect the same single party government and pretend they have freedoms.
You live in a fascist police state..
I live in Free North America.
Since I don't live in that United States any more and am in that USA four or five days a year I refer to my area as Free North America. What's your excuse?
But I gave you a point because no one else had the balls to ask. Besides that's been the policy and regulation since the Patriot Act became law nothing new there. The only thing new was adding suspicion of 'supporting' terrorism just that one word.
And if you haven't been paying attention 24 years Infantry and our oath was and is only to the Constitution.
Seig me No Heils I do NOT serve the party. There now I'm guilty again. Do you know how to click your heels?: