Global warming data a hoax?

[LegendKiller]

Say it ain't so.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

 

[sandorski]

I'll take, "No", for $1000 Alex.

 

[Ken g6]

Looks like they're debating whether the "pause"in global warming was real or not. I'd say it doesn't matter to the overall debate since the last two years have consecutively set records as the hottest in recorded history.

 

[nickqt]

loldailymaillol

 

[Capt Caveman]

loldailymaillol

lollegendkillerlol

 

[Jaskalas]

Looks like they're debating whether the "pause"in global warming was real or not. I'd say it doesn't matter to the overall debate since the last two years have consecutively set records as the hottest in recorded history.

Well, there's always the question of if it will return to a previous state... instead of just stair step climb into absurdity.
But yes... generally speaking when 1998 was obliterated from the record books it ensured there's no valid ocean cycle theory.
Absent a solid alternative... the only scientific option is the prominent / default one.

Their methods may be duplicitous, the original data destroyed through ignorance and incompetence...
but their human failings do not explain away the mountain of data all pointing to a single thing.
They may even outright fake some of it... but that'd be an exaggeration on top an already solid foundation.
Crucify them in their errors, as quality control must do, but recognize the earth is peaking warmth with each new El Nino.

 

[Jaskalas]

BTW, here's a visual of what they're arguing over for this topic.
Notice that in both sets, our most recent numbers do not reach previous lows.
The trend does not appear to be going away no matter what scraps they fight over.

*edit for clarity

 

[Victorian Gray]

Say it ain't so.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Lügenpresse

 

[LegendKiller]

Looks like they're debating whether the "pause"in global warming was real or not. I'd say it doesn't matter to the overall debate since the last two years have consecutively set records as the hottest in recorded history.

Except in most datasets, without adjustments, we didn't. Which is the problem, they adjust the numbers and blame some correction mechanism for the reason.

And as far as laughing at noaa, this is a senior scientist there whistle blowing about their data manipulation. This is serious.

 

[K1052]

Daily Mail has had an ongoing problem of misleading articles featuring cherry picked data, twisted quotes, and suspect conclusions that are often refuted after some examination. I'm not really willing to just take their word.

The planet is warming and we're responsible. This conclusion is as well supported as it is inescapable despite how deeply some of us choose to bury our heads in the sand.

 

[brycejones]

Op

It isn't so.

But we also know it won't matter what anyone here says because you'll believe it anyway. So keep on keeping on.

 

[ch33zw1z]

nvm, not even worth it.

 

[glenn1]

nvm, not even worth it.

Yes because no matter what the two respective sides would never change their positions. Global Warming has become a quasi-religious issue featuring lots of magical thinking on both sides.

 

[brycejones]

\Global Warming has become a quasi-religious issue featuring lots of magical thinking on both sides.

#bothsidesdoit, #whatconsensus

 

[glenn1]

#bothsidesdoit, #whatconsensus

"#Manhattanprojectforalternativeenergy"

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yes because no matter what the two respective sides would never change their positions. Global Warming has become a quasi-religious issue featuring lots of magical thinking on both sides.

I disagree. One side tends to believe in fairy tales much more than the other.

 

[glenn1]

I disagree. One side tends to believe in fairy tales much more than the other.

If it's important for your mental well-being to believe that so be it. The MMGW side has plenty of fairy tales of their own including everything from physics/engineering advances that don't yet exist, a remarkable inability to do honest cost-benefit analysis, willful blindness to simple real-life questions such as base-load power generation adequacy, and belief that others will simply live in poverty forever so to enable their war against fossil fuels.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes because no matter what the two respective sides would never change their positions. Global Warming has become a quasi-religious issue featuring lots of magical thinking on both sides.

That's your religious faith talking.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

bwwahhahahahha... climate change is a hoax. hahahahahhaahhaha...
well luckily you have a fuckwit in the oval office who agrees with your inane ideology. However 97% of the earths scientists are in agreement that man-made global change is real and a danger. Hmmm who to believe.. I just wonder..

 

[fskimospy]

If it's important for your mental well-being to believe that so be it. The MMGW side has plenty of fairy tales of their own including everything from physics/engineering advances that don't yet exist, a remarkable inability to do honest cost-benefit analysis, willful blindness to simple real-life questions such as base-load power generation adequacy, and belief that others will simply live in poverty forever so to enable their war against fossil fuels.

hahaha, nice try. Some people who accept climate change may do those things, but they are a small minority. To refuse to accept climate change requires someone to throw basic physics out of the window and ignore literal reams of scientific data.

Bad attempt at #bothsides. One side is obviously much, much, MUCH more invested in magical thinking than the other.

 

[ch33zw1z]

why i didn't bother.

 

[Commodus]

You can believe in the broader scientific consensus that human-influenced climate change is real, or you can be wrong. Your choice.

What do you stand to gain even if you could somehow prove it was a hoax, anyway? Fossil fuels still produce smog and other tangible forms of pollution, and they're a finite resource that leaves us beholden to other countries' exports. And the only reason why Republicans defend coal and oil is because they're being paid to look the other way.

 

[Jaskalas]

What do you stand to gain even if you could somehow prove

Hope to gain? Keeping energy cheap and plentiful.
To slow down the rate of our change, to hold off the economic impacts of more expensive energy.

 

[TheVrolok]

Say it ain't so.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

It isn't. Period. Science settled. Stop being willfully obdurate. Although I don't expect anything else.

 

[Bitek]

You can believe in the broader scientific consensus that human-influenced climate change is real, or you can be wrong. Your choice.

What do you stand to gain even if you could somehow prove it was a hoax, anyway? Fossil fuels still produce smog and other tangible forms of pollution, and they're a finite resource that leaves us beholden to other countries' exports. And the only reason why Republicans defend coal and oil is because they're being paid to look the other way.

Which endangers us economically long term. They are fighting to hold onto dirty, last gen energy generation technology instead of pushing America to be the pioneers in next gen tech.

Even if our oil barons can snowball the US population, the rest of the first world is moving away. This will eventually leave us with outdated power plants and little cutting edge tech to offer the world, let alone being pariahs for our pollution and gluttony.

I thought we wanted jobs? Here's a golden opportunity and we're blowing it.