Report: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Herdfan, Jul 6, 2017.

  1. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Apr 11, 2011

    So I know some of you are going to immediately dismiss the story because of its source. Fine. But dismissing it simply because of where it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The peer-reviewed study would still be out there even if the DC hadn't reported on it. There is just no way the MSM would ever report it nor would left-leaning outlets because it doesn't fit their narrative.

    But the gist of it is that all indicators of global warming are from adjustments made to the raw data and almost all of the adjustments increase the warmth. Now I am not a scientist, but it would seem common sense that adjustments should be both up and down. Hmmmm.

    Actually I think most of them should be down simply due to sprawl. What was temp station in a cornfield 20 miles north of Indianapolis in the 70's is now in the middle of an asphalt jungle. Readings are going to be higher on their own and probably should be adjusted down to be able to compare them to reading when it was a cornfield. But that's just me.

    I think in 30 years, or less, the 2 great lies being perpetrated on the people are going to have been exposed. One is global warming and the second is cannabis. So yes, that is a prediction.
  2. darksithpro macrumors 6502a

    Oct 27, 2016
    The comments from that article are pretty good!

    "Ivan Karloff • 17 hours ago
    I used to be a climate change fanatic, but discovered that it is all a scam funded by globalists. The world is actually greening and has greened a lot over the last 35 years according satellite data. The poles aren't melting either and extreme weather is pretty much the same as it has always been.
    The purpose of climate change funded science is to create a worldwide tax regime and climate accords that rob wealthy nations so that a UN regime of control of the world's population via regulations can be enacted. They need something for the whole world to panic over to seize control and all the wealth.
    The public is to be rendered a powerless global mass. No real nations because citizens hold power. You won't even be allowed to hold opinions they do not consider orthodox. They even do that now claiming that anyone who questions their phony data is hostile or insane. Once they take over anyone who questions anything will be a dissident."

    "Virtual_Reality_Loser Ivan Karloff10 hours ago
    You win the internet today:

    Here is what the UN Bureaucrats say about the global warming hoax, in their own words:

    Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

    Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

    Quote by Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.

    Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

    Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
  3. JayMysterio macrumors 6502


    Apr 24, 2010
    Rock Ridge, California
    Interesting timing of that article release, because there was also this one as well...

    I always find it fascinating when opposing articles come out within hours or a day of one another.
  4. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    Your Daily Caller link called the study "peer-reviewed" but when you click on their link to the study it takes you to a wordpress site.

    Do you know what peer-reviewed scientific journal this was published in?
  5. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Jul 17, 2008
    No. We can't say whether it makes sense to adjust up or down unless we know why adjustments are being made in the first place. Like for instance, if it was known that a certain measurement method in wide use at the time some data was collected was known to be off by -2, then all data collected with that method would have to be adjusted by +2.
  6. hulugu macrumors 68000


    Aug 13, 2003
    quae tangit perit Trump
    Right. It's not from a journal, but was simply published to the same Wordpress site that hosts their other research. Even the sourcing is a little dodgy, Climate4U. WTF?

    And, it's important to note that two of the authors were signatories on the Cato Institute's 100 list of "deniers" and have written the book "Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming" from the website

    Moreover, Joseph D'Aleo once claimed that the Earth was about to enter a period of global cooling in 2008.

    Additionally, why the hell is this an "exclusive" for the Daily Caller? That's not how science works and it strikes me as especially dodgy that the main press for this research comes from such a toad-in-the-hole publication strategy.

    That said, this article merely points out that there may be problems in GAST or the Global Average Surface Temperature, a system that tries to track temperature changes going back to 1890. Even if we accept their research as correct, there are dozens of other data sets that point to significant warming and this merely shows that the EPA's "Clean Power Program" may rely on a dataset that could have problems.

    It's no surprise that two guys who worked with Cato, and who wrote amicus briefs in to the Supreme Court regarding the matter want to sink the EPA's Obama-era program, and thus, they've managed to argue that the CPP relied on flawed data.

    Based on my current information, I'd hesitate to trust their conclusions.
  7. shinji macrumors 65816


    Mar 18, 2007
    How is cannabis a 'lie' ...?
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    I really doesn't get you high.

    All this time it's just been placebo effect.

  9. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a


    Apr 20, 2009
    Riiiiight. The tundra is disappearing all by itself. There is visible evidence that things are warming up, but let's pretend it's not!


    Ah yes...random comments from the Internet...well that settles it! You understand that a warm greenhouse is full of green plants right? I'm not sure what the green statement proves. I don't recall anyone saying the planet is turning into a desert, just that it's warming. So I don't know why you were impressed with that person's comment.

    At what point did mankind start regressing backwards? It seems knowledge and science and even visual evidence that you can see are now frowned upon. How long before half the population thinks the earth is flat?
  10. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    It's science ... not a rock band.

    I used to be sooo into Climate Change before it sold out and became mainstream.
  11. UL2RA Suspended

    May 7, 2017
  12. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020


    Jan 31, 2015
    Well, I can't exactly speak to what degree global warming/climate change is real/influenced by humans/the ultimate ecological effects, but I can say. my father works in investment banking in the energy market. I can tell you a lot of the programs and initiatives are pretty much scams where people (including my father) are raking in the money while little money goes to the program/investment (and whether or not it actually makes an environmental difference is a whole different topic). Be weary of how you spend your money towards "green energy". A lot of the green energy is more about "green" (money) than green (environmentalism).
  13. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Apr 11, 2011
    Perhaps lie is not the best word. But it has been demonized by politicians starting with Nixon as the "devil's lettuce" and since it is a Schedule 1 drug, barriers to real research are high (NPI).

    I think as legalization continues to progress and research starts happening that it will be discovered that it does have healing powers and could benefit society.
  14. samcraig, Jul 7, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2017

    samcraig macrumors P6

    Jun 22, 2009
    Here's what science has taught me. Cause and Effect.

    Now unless I'm mistaken - all the data referenced in this report is "recent." Meaning after the industrial revolution, no? If so, it's not a question of whether things are just trending as usual or if there's a significant uptick here or there. What it says to me is that the more crap we put in our water and in the air, the greater the negative effect. And if that is the case - there's no argument about whether or not we should be reducing such contaminants.
  15. Eraserhead macrumors G4


    Nov 3, 2005
    The scientists agree with you...
  16. shinji macrumors 65816


    Mar 18, 2007
    Wow, agree 100%.
  17. skunk macrumors G4


    Jun 29, 2002
    Republic of Ukistan
    Way longer than that. "Reefer Madness" is a racist meme from the 40s.
    This has been known for a very long time. I saw a copy of the British Pharmocopeia from 1936 which had over 30 pages devoted to the healing properties of cannabis.
  18. VulchR macrumors 68020


    Jun 8, 2009
    We'll also find a proportion of people who are vulnerable to ill effects of the drug. Cannabis probably a very mixed bag, particularly if smoked, but I think the costs of sending somebody to prison for possession of it is higher than any benefit.
  19. Raid macrumors 68020


    Feb 18, 2003
    Wow careful were you put your head in the sand, those people are going to drown when the ocean level rises! :D
  20. jkcerda macrumors 6502a


    Jun 10, 2013
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    YOU can avoid global warming by simply buying carbon credits :D , aren't the houses that were by the beaches in the 80's supposed to be under water already? :rolleyes:
  21. LordVic macrumors 601

    Sep 7, 2011
    According to the Flat-Earthers. Yes. Yes Nasa has been lying to us. it's all a scam to collect our money for "space research" which can't exist because there's no space.

    the lizard overlords use it to milk the poor
    --- Post Merged, Jul 7, 2017 ---
    ahh, I had interpretted your first post to imply you believe the benefits and the legalization was the Lie,

    But this post clears it up. And yes, I agree with you

    Most of the science that has already been done agrees with your opinion here. Marijuana / Cannabis has been demonized by the media in the 60's. There was a concerted effort by the US Administration at the time to do so. Many of the studies they released where falsified or poorly run to help skew results in their favour.

    Cannabis has been in use for thousands of years, and many of the benefits (aside from being high) have been known. We now just need the legitimate scientific research to re-enforce it (and hey, who knows, prove us wrong)
  22. oneMadRssn macrumors 601


    Sep 8, 2011
    New England
  23. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Apr 11, 2011
    So true. When Henry Aslinger was the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics he purposely chose the Spanish name "marihuana" to scare people. By the time the AMA found out that it was cannabis it was too late to stop him.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 7, 2017 ---
    Of course. But almost anything can be said of almost any pharmaceutical. Have you ever listened to side effects of drugs in the commercials? Some of them sound worse than the disease they are trying to cure. Correct that, Big Pahrma doesn't want to cure anything, instead they want to treat and minimize the symptoms. If they cured something, you would no longer need their drugs.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 7, 2017 ---
    And that is why a large proportion of the population isn't buying it anymore. Too many "sky is falling" type predictions from respected persons (Al Gore for example) that didn't come true, or even close to it.
  24. mudslag, Jul 7, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2017

    mudslag macrumors regular


    Oct 18, 2010

    Yes the source should be questioned, in this case, it's not an actual peer-reviewed study and was published on wordpress, let alone the dailycaller. That's not how peer-review studies work, it was never submitted to any journal, so right off the bat this screams BS.

    As for one of it's publishers Joseph D'Aleo

    Then the other co-author doesn't have a background in climate science.

    Sorry Herdfan but you fell for this garbage.

Share This Page