Global warming data manipulated

[kindy64]

Hmmm, if the case is such that data has to be manipulated in order to make it, then there's not much of a case is there...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-data.html

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

[Borg69]

What I don't get is how they can base 4 .5 billion year old planet weather on 200 years of observation.

[kindy64]

Well, I've always been skeptical, as the data models they're using are woefully inadequate. So far, their predictions don't match reality.

Climate change happens with and without any input from man. Warming periods and ice ages came and went without mans input. To what extent we have an impact on the global climate is still up for debate.

That said, I've always said there are sane economic reasons for increasing energy efficiency, and reducing pollution. There are economic reasons we should pull development away from the coasts and floodplains, ie the cost of insurance and rebuilding when hurricanes and floods hit.

More study is needed before drastic measures are taken.

[TigerLover]

The science seems brutally conclusive to me..... and most scientists in the world.

[Borg69]

They can't accurately predict what the weather is going to do 2 months from now let alone 200 years from now.

[artyboy]

They can't accurately predict what the weather is going to do 2 months from now let alone 200 years from now.

Where did you get that from? Otherwise it sounds like total BS lol!!!

[meridannight]

I have to say that I don't buy the global warming either. How exactly do they differentiate between a temporally hot weather and an irreversible disaster? How is that done? I'd like to know.

This planet has gone through several phases of climate change lasting on the order of thousands of years, if not more. I am not convinced that our current records are indicative of anything. And from the scientific material I've read an ice age is just as likely as global warming.

I am aware of the CO2 emissions, and the danger of runaway greenhouse effect (that one is real and directly affected by human actions on this planet), and we have to bear those things in mind and be careful. But I haven't seen a convincing 'evidence' for global warming yet.

[artyboy]

Oh well science is not fashionable any more I guess, lets all believe in Santa!!!

[meridannight]

Lol, because being unconvinced/skeptical equals being superstitious. Fully same thing.

[NativeSon]

They can't accurately predict what the weather is going to do 2 months from now let alone 200 years from now.

How interesting. Though, I believe the OP was highlighting the manipulation of collected data from at least 2 months ago and beyond.

Anything to keep me dry in the meantime. ha ha