/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11269690
>Their unsonscious bias leads to publicizing only data they are happy with.
Then why are adjustments reducing global warming? According to your conspiracy theory, adjustments should only be increasing global warming.

>>9905582
>Using temperature instead of anomaly to exaggerate the difference
Really despicable.

And can you explain why the net affect of NOAA's adjustments is to reduce the global warming trend?

>>9842276
>Steve Goddard has proven that the 1930s were warmer than they are now, but the NASA data was changed to make the 1930s colder and the recent decades warmer.
You mean more data was added to the records? Why is increasing the coverage of the data bad?

If you actually look at all the adjustments to the data and don't just cherrypick, you'll see that climatologists' adjustments have actually decreased the warming trend. Why would they do that?

>The models used to predict climate change are not validated and neither are the projections.
They have been accurate for decades.

>https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
I don't see any scientists predicting an ice age, just some popsci articles not understanding what ice age means and the vast majority of climatologists predicting warming.

>Because oil companies own the green energy companies you dingbat.
Which of these companies are controlled by big oil?

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-25-renewable-energy-companies-thomson-reuters-2017-11

>Of course oil companies want to be seen funding "deniers", they're playing both sides.
Why would they play both sides? They get bad press and they reduce demand for their own product. They could have good press and maximize their value by investing in renewables in proportion to demand. But they're not. In reality, they would prefer for no environmental regulations to be passed. That is how they maximize their value. You're not making any sense.

>Look up the list of oil tankers crashing every year. There are so many more oil tankers fucking up than any other ship/tanker. They're doing it deliberately.
Why?

>>9189410
>NOAA
You mean the organization whose adjustments actually decrease the global warming trend? Surely you don't think USHCN stations are the only sources of data?

>data tampering
Time to educate yourself!

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/