[JohnC]

Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA

Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA | The Daily Caller

 

[Novanutcase]

Why am I not surprised by this?

John

 

[98FireyGT!]

Sorry, I still think anyone denying the existence of climate change is too stupid to live.

I got into this with a buddy of mine that works in the oil field. He adamantly denies the existence of climate change, saying that its a conspiracy cooked up by liberals to kill the oil and gas industry, and claims that the unusually dramatic weather patterns that have been occurring across the country in recent years are no different than any other year, and its all sensationalism by the liberal-controlled media...

Because, yeah, -15 degrees in Tennessee is the norm for the end of February... :facepalm:

The thing I don't get, is why is it so hard to grasp the concept that yes, there is climate change, yes, it is more than likely in part caused or exacerbated by human activities, and yes, we should be researching and developing ways to make harvesting and burning fossil fuels as efficient and clean as possible.

Obviously, modern society can't function without them, at least, not with the existing infrastructure and energy demands, they won't last forever, and they aren't the cleanest way of doing things, so why not do everything possible to ensure that the industry does things in a way that isn't just "**** the planet, we made money lol"

 

[Novanutcase]

Sorry, I still think anyone denying the existence of climate change is too stupid to live.

I got into this with a buddy of mine that works in the oil field. He adamantly denies the existence of climate change, saying that its a conspiracy cooked up by liberals to kill the oil and gas industry, and claims that the unusually dramatic weather patterns that have been occurring across the country in recent years are no different than any other year, and its all sensationalism by the liberal-controlled media...

Because, yeah, -15 degrees in Tennessee is the norm for the end of February... :facepalm:

The thing I don't get, is why is it so hard to grasp the concept that yes, there is climate change, yes, it is more than likely in part caused or exacerbated by human activities, and yes, we should be researching and developing ways to make harvesting and burning fossil fuels as efficient and clean as possible.

Obviously, modern society can't function without them, at least, not with the existing infrastructure and energy demands, they won't last forever, and they aren't the cleanest way of doing things, so why not do everything possible to ensure that the industry does things in a way that isn't just "**** the planet, we made money lol"

You're wasting your time.....

John

 

[Sixpointslow]

Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA

Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA | The Daily Caller

Can a brother get another Benghazi investigation while we're at it? :baller: :baller: :baller:

 

[Novanutcase]

Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA

Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA | The Daily Caller

John

 

[Eagle2000GT]

Of course there is climate change. The big question is it driven by natural causes or is it man-made. I've been following the discussion on climate change for a lot of years and have no vested interest one way or the other. There have been a lot of interesting development. The original hockey stick chart that became famous is generally accepted as a lie. He cherry picked the data. It wasn't Republicans that discovered this but two Canadian scientists who were trying to duplicate his results. Al Gore's movie was a lie. It was proven to have glaring falsehoods in a British court. The computer models used to predict climate change are wrong. They failed to predict the "pause." A period of no warming that has lasted longer than the period of warming. Global warming scientists are unable to explain why. One even admitted that they don't understand the natural causes of climate change very well. Obviously, they didn't include scientists who were studying natural causes on their teams.

Those studying natural causes predicted the pause. There is roughly a 30-year cycle of warming and cooling in the Pacific called the Pacific Decal Oscillation. These scientist agree that there is global warming. Their studies show that even though there are cycles the earth warmed and the oceans have risen about the same in the 1900s as they did in the 1800s. The general accepted end of the little ice age is 1850. But that doesn't mean the earth stopped warming in 1850. It is still recovering from that event. There is also a high correlation of sunspot activity associated with major changes in our climate. Global warming scientists have discounted these natural causes because they cannot explain exactly how the sun and oceans affect climate.

Global warming scientist also discount historical record. The earth was warmer and the oceans were higher before the little ice age during the medieval warm period and Roman warm period. We have records of Vikings sailing the northern Atlantic and settling Greenland. Greenland had farmland back then. Around 1000 AD the Viking even reached America. In 1066 William the Conquerer invaded England. The castle where is forces landed was on an island connect to England by a causeway. That castle is now over a mile from the sea. They didn't move the castle. The oceans receded as the earth grew colder. In 1000 AD there was a thriving farming civilization centered in what is now New Mexico desert. When the climate became colder the rains came less often. By 1250 the civilization ceased to exist as the last survivors packed up and left the area. Old Roman port cities are miles inland for the same reason. The UN IPCC have tried to say these are regional events but other scientist disagree. They have found evidence of the warm periods in Australia, New Zealand and South America. It is also hard to believe that a regional warming would raise the oceans that much.

More recently there have been discrepancies between recorded temperatures. Satellite measurements indicate a pause or a slight cooling. Earth based sensors indicate that the earth is still getting warmer. Some scientist started questioning the data. One looked at the raw data from the three ground based stations used to collect data over a huge part of Paraguay. He found that NASA had been adjusting the data. In every single instance historical temperatures were adjusted downward while more recent temperatures were adjusted upward. This was not a Republican study. The story was published in a respected British newspaper. Other scientist are finding that the raw data from other places around the world are being adjusted in the same way.

While global warming became almost a religious belief in the United States the same is not true in other countries. Scientist in Russia are starting to predict a strong cooling trend. Global cooling is far more dangerous than global warming. They have even been articles suggesting that is why Russia wants Crimea and parts of the Ukraine. If cooling happens they are going to need warmer farm lands.

I believe in conservation and I do not know if global warming is from natural causes or is man-made. But if we are to totally change our economy I think it might be a good idea to find out why NASA is manipulating the data.

 

[Sixpointslow]

Of course there is climate change. The big question is it driven by natural causes or is it man-made. I've been following the discussion on climate change for a lot of years and have no vested interest one way or the other. There have been a lot of interesting development. The original hockey stick chart that became famous is generally accepted as a lie. He cherry picked the data. It wasn't Republicans that discovered this but two Canadian scientists who were trying to duplicate his results. Al Gore's movie was a lie. It was proven to have glaring falsehoods in a British court. The computer models used to predict climate change are wrong. They failed to predict the "pause." A period of no warming that has lasted longer than the period of warming. Global warming scientists are unable to explain why. One even admitted that they don't understand the natural causes of climate change very well. Obviously, they didn't include scientists who were studying natural causes on their teams.

Those studying natural causes predicted the pause. There is roughly a 30-year cycle of warming and cooling in the Pacific called the Pacific Decal Oscillation. These scientist agree that there is global warming. Their studies show that even though there are cycles the earth warmed and the oceans have risen about the same in the 1900s as they did in the 1800s. The general accepted end of the little ice age is 1850. But that doesn't mean the earth stopped warming in 1850. It is still recovering from that event. There is also a high correlation of sunspot activity associated with major changes in our climate. Global warming scientists have discounted these natural causes because they cannot explain exactly how the sun and oceans affect climate.

Global warming scientist also discount historical record. The earth was warmer and the oceans were higher before the little ice age during the medieval warm period and Roman warm period. We have records of Vikings sailing the northern Atlantic and settling Greenland. Greenland had farmland back then. Around 1000 AD the Viking even reached America. In 1066 William the Conquerer invaded England. The castle where is forces landed was on an island connect to England by a causeway. That castle is now over a mile from the sea. They didn't move the castle. The oceans receded as the earth grew colder. In 1000 AD there was a thriving farming civilization centered in what is now New Mexico desert. When the climate became colder the rains came less often. By 1250 the civilization ceased to exist as the last survivors packed up and left the area. Old Roman port cities are miles inland for the same reason. The UN IPCC have tried to say these are regional events but other scientist disagree. They have found evidence of the warm periods in Australia, New Zealand and South America. It is also hard to believe that a regional warming would raise the oceans that much.

More recently there have been discrepancies between recorded temperatures. Satellite measurements indicate a pause or a slight cooling. Earth based sensors indicate that the earth is still getting warmer. Some scientist started questioning the data. One looked at the raw data from the three ground based stations used to collect data over a huge part of Paraguay. He found that NASA had been adjusting the data. In every single instance historical temperatures were adjusted downward while more recent temperatures were adjusted upward. This was not a Republican study. The story was published in a respected British newspaper. Other scientist are finding that the raw data from other places around the world are being adjusted in the same way.

While global warming became almost a religious belief in the United States the same is not true in other countries. Scientist in Russia are starting to predict a strong cooling trend. Global cooling is far more dangerous than global warming. They have even been articles suggesting that is why Russia wants Crimea and parts of the Ukraine. If cooling happens they are going to need warmer farm lands.

I believe in conservation and I do not know if global warming is from natural causes or is man-made. But if we are to totally change our economy I think it might be a good idea to find out why NASA is manipulating the data.

A lot of misinformation here...

In the case of the "hockey stick graph", congress enlisted the US National Academy of Science to reconstruct the graph using expanded data and they reached the same conclusion as before, despite the variances of the graphs. Of course, the spin on the story was that the data was found to be incorrect by the US National Academy of Science and so it was all a hoax. This was a half truth, clearly shown when you include the part where the 2006 study reached the same conclusions as the "hockey stick graph".

In the case of temperature fabrication, this is again a play on the truth. That "one guy" was Paul Homewood, who is as much a scientist as guys like David Barton are a historian(note that Fox News loves both of them). Politifact actually addressed this smoke and mirrors argument.

You said - "I've been following the discussion on climate change for a lot of years and have no vested interest one way or the other". While that may be entirely true, of the arguments presented that I've addressed neither were promoted outside of right wing media outlets. Neither were arguments backed by credible scientists in a related field. This is the part where JohnC comes in and says "You listen to NASA, I'll listen to Breitbart". Now if you begin to laugh intensely at that statement, don't be alarmed. That indicates only that you are still sane.

 

[Sixpointslow]

I looked for information on the claim relating the Pacific Decal Oscillation as far as a source, and I got led down a rabbit hole of right wing sites, none of which delve into the science. But I'll just say that PDO doesn't create heat, it merely transfers it. That's the fundamental thing about the phenomenon. One part cools while the other warms and vice versa. I'm all for hearing the argument of how this somehow effects global temperatures if you can present it.

I also found your Russian scientists or, more accurately, scientist(an astrophysicist), Khabibullo Abdusamatov. His prediction had to be off by a year, because 2014 was supposed to be the start of a cooling trend, not the warmest year on record. Again, I have no access to the actual breakdown of his research/findings/beliefs/whatever they are. All I can find are short reports reporting that he said an ice age would start in 2014.

 

[Eagle2000GT]

I looked for information on the claim relating the Pacific Decal Oscillation as far as a source, and I got led down a rabbit hole of right wing sites, none of which delve into the science. But I'll just say that PDO doesn't create heat, it merely transfers it. That's the fundamental thing about the phenomenon. One part cools while the other warms and vice versa. I'm all for hearing the argument of how this somehow effects global temperatures if you can present it.

I misspelled it. It's the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. And you are correct. It is a cycle of heat being absorbed and released by the Pacific Ocean. The ocean was releasing heat when the IPCC computer models were correct. The pause occurred when it started absorbing heat. And as I said before the long term trend is toward warming. It has been since the end of the little ice age. And before the little ice age the Vikings did settle and farm Greenland and William did land on what was once a small island. That is not right wing propaganda.

Even some of those who believe in man-made global warming disagree with the catastrophic consequences that being mentioned. I have read reports that the most the oceans are expected to rise is 6-12" over the next century which is about the same as the last century.

As I said before I am not sure. But I'm not willing to destroy our economy on a maybe. And I really don't trust the UN. The majority of its member nations are petty dictatorships. The last couple of meetings on climate change has boiled down to how much money can the third world get from the developed nations with the simultaneous goal of ending capitalism.

Ethanol is a disaster. It is worse for the environment than gasoline when you add in the environmental cost of growing and transporting corn and the cost of transporting ethanol to be mixed in. The ethanol plant just north of here uses 110 semi-truck loads of corn daily. I've been there. This has driven the price of corn from $3.50 per bushel to nearly $8.00 a bushel. That made the grain farmers very happy but many of the farmers around here have stopped raising livestock. Their barns are empty. They can't afford to feed them. Ethanol has increased the price of food as well. A little hurt in the US. A lot of hurt in other parts of the world. When you already pay 70% of your income for food there is very little more that you can do. My wife is an anthropologist. She has told me that this has been devastating in some areas because food aid dollars just don't go as far as the used to.

The war on coal impacts real people as well. They shut down one of our coal burning electrical generation plants just south of here. Electric prices have gone up. Again, not a big deal if you can afford it but it is a big deal for the working poor. I have relatives that are struggling to pay their energy bills and the temperature is five degrees below zero today. That plant was the major employer in a small town. The layoffs rippled through the community. Government assistance does not replace good paying jobs. People started moving away. Stores and other shops closed.

If what the reports say are true then the data used by almost all of the climate scientists including the IPCC comes from NASA. The global warmist's war on climate change is causing real pain to real families and ruining local communities. You might not see it in LA or Delaware but its real. I just want to make sure the data is correct before we go much further.

On a side note, I absolutely oppose carbon payments to third world nations. As we ruin lives and communities we are going to need that money at home.

 

[Sixpointslow]

I misspelled it. It's the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. And you are correct. It is a cycle of heat being absorbed and released by the Pacific Ocean. The ocean was releasing heat when the IPCC computer models were correct. The pause occurred when it started absorbing heat. And as I said before the long term trend is toward warming. It has been since the end of the little ice age. And before the little ice age the Vikings did settle and farm Greenland and William did land on what was once a small island. That is not right wing propaganda.

Even some of those who believe in man-made global warming disagree with the catastrophic consequences that being mentioned. I have read reports that the most the oceans are expected to rise is 6-12" over the next century which is about the same as the last century.

As I said before I am not sure. But I'm not willing to destroy our economy on a maybe. And I really don't trust the UN. The majority of its member nations are petty dictatorships. The last couple of meetings on climate change has boiled down to how much money can the third world get from the developed nations with the simultaneous goal of ending capitalism.

Ethanol is a disaster. It is worse for the environment than gasoline when you add in the environmental cost of growing and transporting corn and the cost of transporting ethanol to be mixed in. The ethanol plant just north of here uses 110 semi-truck loads of corn daily. I've been there. This has driven the price of corn from $3.50 per bushel to nearly $8.00 a bushel. That made the grain farmers very happy but many of the farmers around here have stopped raising livestock. Their barns are empty. They can't afford to feed them. Ethanol has increased the price of food as well. A little hurt in the US. A lot of hurt in other parts of the world. When you already pay 70% of your income for food there is very little more that you can do. My wife is an anthropologist. She has told me that this has been devastating in some areas because food aid dollars just don't go as far as the used to.

The war on coal impacts real people as well. They shut down one of our coal burning electrical generation plants just south of here. Electric prices have gone up. Again, not a big deal if you can afford it but it is a big deal for the working poor. I have relatives that are struggling to pay their energy bills and the temperature is five degrees below zero today. That plant was the major employer in a small town. The layoffs rippled through the community. Government assistance does not replace good paying jobs. People started moving away. Stores and other shops closed.

If what the reports say are true then the data used by almost all of the climate scientists including the IPCC comes from NASA. The global warmist's war on climate change is causing real pain to real families and ruining local communities. You might not see it in LA or Delaware but its real. I just want to make sure the data is correct before we go much further.

On a side note, I absolutely oppose carbon payments to third world nations. As we ruin lives and communities we are going to need that money at home.

Okay. I'm seeing what you're saying, but I still don't see any effect on long term trends. The argument skeptics make is that this phenomenon as well as solar sun spot activity play much larger roles in our climate as opposed to CO2, but when you look at the trends it shows the exact opposite. In spite of low sun spot activity and a period of signification heat absorption from PDO, we have seen at worst stagnant temperature rise and at times continual temperature growth in spite of the sunspot and PDO activity. In other words, the data only shows that these things are short term players and thus cannot be resonsible for global warming.

Other then that, I agree with you on a lot of issues here. The failure of ethanol, the facade of carbon payments, etc. We're not attacking the issue like we should, but we absolutely should be going after a solution.

 

[Novanutcase]

Interesting the tone and feel of a real debate rather than having to try and push through rhetoric that is obviously slanted.

Eagle2000gt while I may not agree with you entirely you present a very rational case for climate change and how reliable the data may or may not be.

John

 

[03SonicBoom]

Because, yeah, -15 degrees in Tennessee is the norm for the end of February... :facepalm:

I find it funny how in another thread John was chastised because he was only looking at a small area or couple days. But when you mention -15 degrees in Tennessee at the end of February, no one brings up that you're looking at one area on a couple days. I bet if you expand your data to the month of January and/or February, you would find it's pretty normal. In January Indianapolis had 5 days average temperatures, 12 days above average, and 13 days below. Overall, January had average temperatures in Indianapolis. Yes there were some days where it was VERY cold. But there were also days where it was warmer.

Bottom line, follow the same philosophy that's used by those that agree with climate change to bring deniers into perspective.........stop looking at a very small time frame and area.

 

[Novanutcase]

I find it funny how in another thread John was chastised because he was only looking at a small area or couple days. But when you mention -15 degrees in Tennessee at the end of February, no one brings up that you're looking at one area on a couple days. I bet if you expand your data to the month of January and/or February, you would find it's pretty normal. In January Indianapolis had 5 days average temperatures, 12 days above average, and 13 days below. Overall, January had average temperatures in Indianapolis. Yes there were some days where it was VERY cold. But there were also days where it was warmer.

Bottom line, follow the same philosophy that's used by those that agree with climate change to bring deniers into perspective.........stop looking at a very small time frame and area.

Agreed! To be fair, as Shane has pointed out, it's best to take a larger sample rather than try and distill your argument from a small time frame. I know that's not what your intention was and the larger meaning of your post was understood but just to be clear.

John

 

[JohnC]

Interesting the tone and feel of a real debate rather than having to try and push through rhetoric that is obviously slanted.

Eagle2000gt while I may not agree with you entirely you present a very rational case for climate change and how reliable the data may or may not be.

John

Nah, if I'd posted that same reply, it would be all right-wing propaganda and rhetoric from a right winger tea partier. I'd been attacked as I was in the other thread and many others. :yes

That's why I don't give a **** to respond anymore. I'll post topics, but could care less to try to discuss anything with you when all you do is attack and drag topics off the rails and ignoring discussing the main point of most of the threads.

That attitude is why this section has died out a lot. No one that comes here to read politics wants to waste time reading Nova and EFox attacking JohnC and obviously trolling topics.

Matter of fact, I might just put you back on ignore and start discussing topics with people who want to and don't attack and make stupid comments directed at me like yours above. :yes

 

[Novanutcase]

Nah, if I'd posted that same reply, it would be all right-wing propaganda and rhetoric from a right winger tea partier. I'd been attacked as I was in the other thread and many others. :yes

That's why I don't give a **** to respond anymore. I'll post topics, but could care less to try to discuss anything with you when all you do is attack and drag topics off the rails and ignoring discussing the main point of most of the threads.

That attitude is why this section has died out a lot. No one that comes here to read politics wants to waste time reading Nova and EFox attacking JohnC and obviously trolling topics.

Matter of fact, I might just put you back on ignore and start discussing topics with people who want to and don't attack and make stupid comments directed at me like yours above. :yes

And what is the "main point" you want to inject in your postings? What an asshole BHO is? What a bunch of dumbasses liberals are? Why would I not comment on how unproductive that is? Why would I not post actual facts that refute your authors claims? Are you mad because your asinine rebuttals hold no water?

The difference between yours and Eagles posts are he comes in with facts that actually have some credibility whereas you rely on others to come up with facts that are, in most cases, easily debunked. I've said this countless times, you need to fact check whatever article you're going to post otherwise it's going to get picked apart if the "facts" in your article are suspect. Perfect example is your Obamanomics thread. It literally took me seconds to debunk the article you posted.

You seem to think that my sole purpose is to attack you but if you took any time to actually read posts other than your own you would have noticed that I agreed with Shane in the post above the one you just posted that it was unfair to chastise you for having used a narrow window to base your climate change denial argument on when 98fireygt did the same thing.

Your claims about my "dragging topics off the rails"? Is it that I'm hijacking the thread or is it that the hypocrisy that you post is being pointed out when that wasn't the end result that you wanted for your post, rather, you were looking for vindication yet when I come in and spoil whatever hatchet job you're trying to set up against the ACA/BHO/Liberals or whatever other subject gets your panties in a bunch you cry foul. As has been said before, if you don't want to entertain opposing views then don't start the thread.

John

 

[Sixpointslow]

Matter of fact, I might just put you back on ignore and start discussing topics with people who want to and don't attack and make stupid comments directed at me like yours above. :yes

Translation- I want to come in here and have other people agree with my opinions to satiate my confirmation bias.

 

[JohnC]

Translation- I want to come in here and have other people agree with my opinions to satiate my confirmation bias.

Nope. You know that's not true. You know exactly what y'all have been doing. :facepalm:

I want to be able to post and have a discussion without being attacked and trolled. The moment I see trolling the topic off or an attack coming, I'm out.

I'm not wasting anymore time on here just for the sake of responding to stupid ****. I mean, I figured y'all would get tired of attacking and trolling everything after a while, but it hasn't let up in a long while, so I'm over it at this point. Too many other forums and places to spend time than to be here where I can't post topics without the usual BS.

I'm a Global Moderator on my local gun forum. We have over 22,000 members. We do not have the stupid **** that goes on in this forum, on our board. Scroll down and see members: Tennessee Gun Owners - The Premier Website for Tennessee Firearm Owners and Enthusiasts and here look for JohnC as a moderator over all forums: The moderating team - TNGunOwners.com Add that I own and Admin 3 forums myself and I visit countless other forums political sections, and I don't encounter the BS on any of those forums that I do here. That said, I used to enjoy discussion here, but not so much anymore.

I'm giving this place one last try with Nova/John on ignore for a while. But if I get the same BS I have been, I'm out. I might post a topic once in a while, but I won't bother responding much if at all.

Take it fwiw.... :yes

 

[Sixpointslow]

More confirmation of what I already said. lol

When you seek conversation only with those who agree with you, you're not looking to have a legitimate, honest discussion on a topic. That fits you perfectly.

 

[Novanutcase]

More confirmation of what I already said. lol

When you seek conversation only with those who agree with you, you're not looking to have a legitimate, honest discussion on a topic. That fits you perfectly.

Exactly! You don't want honest discussion. You want confirmation that the government is out to get you and everyone around you. I browsed your TNG site. All right wingers that are more than ready to agree with your inane conspiracy theories. It's no wonder you feel like Eric and I attack you. A lot of your members think like you.

So when you post an article that says the ACA is **** and is killing the elderly with "death panels" how should I respond to that? Should I agree with you even though the article is a crock of **** and a complete lie? Just because you may accept it as truth doesn't mean I have to go along with it. I think I've been pretty consistent in regards to agreeing with you on certain topics while others I have an opposing view to yours. That you can't stand someone with an opposing view that points out your hypocrisy is on you.

John