Climate Change BTFO Forever

[Anonymous No.8652566]

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
How will climate change cultists ever recover?

[Anonymous No.8652582]

>daily fail

[Anonymous No.8652588]

>>8652566
>this faggot from /pol/ unironically came here to """""red pill"""" us with a dailymail article
how many time has david rose claimed he debunked climate science in the past year?
lel

[Anonymous No.8652589]

>alternative news

[Anonymous No.8652593]

It's just like that massive world wide conspiracy to save the whales! Just to make the whale oil industry non-competitive! Fuck those assholes!

[Anonymous No.8652595]

>>8652582
>>8652588
>>8652589
Not OP, but if one of the principal scientists for the NCEI says they use bunk methods for getting data and don't follow procedure shouldn't you look at it critically? Isn't that what science is about?

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/

He worked for the organization for 40 years and made internal complaints about their lack of integrity.

[Anonymous No.8652600]

>>8652582
>>8652588
>oh shit, our NWO approved talking points haven't arrived yet
>lets just adhom!

[Anonymous No.8652601]

>>8652593

[Anonymous No.8652602]

>>8652566
I don't even need temperature data to prove climate change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/up-and-up-plants-and-animals-migrating-as-climate-changes/2011/08/18/gIQAzlTxNJ_story.html?utm_term=.67bcfad0bf2a

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140725-climate-change-tropical-fish-animals-ocean-science/

http://www.climateandweather.net/global-warming/climate-change-and-animals.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5wpCo0Sqg

[Anonymous No.8652603]

>>8652602
But the data was collected improperly, so all of that isn't happening.

[Anonymous No.8652604]

Stop making these fucking threads and get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.8652606]

>>8652602
But the temperature data was collected improperly, so all of that isn't happening.

[Anonymous No.8652607]

>>8652595
give me a real source or fuck off to /pol/

[Anonymous No.8652612]

>>8652602
>>8652603
It means something else is causing those things and not "climate change". We need to reassess what is happening and why. Pollution can cause environmental problems, obviously. The climate changing/Earth heating up is not correlating to what humans are doing though. At least not to the extent currently being parroted in the media.

[Anonymous No.8652613]

>>8652602
but they made various mistakes in collecting the temperature data, so all of that isn't happening

[Anonymous No.8652615]

Been telling you idiots on /b this for years. It's all about money for "research." Always has been. In the 80s, it was a huge hole supposedly in the ozone layer. Now somehow man caused the earth to over heat. Yeah ok. Kys libtards.

[Anonymous No.8652617]

>>8652607
>give me a real source or fuck off to /pol/
Why is the content of the article bad? It is detailing an interview with a first and reporting on a NOAA scientist talking about methodology issues with the data provided.

[Anonymous No.8652620]

>Trump is climate change denier
>Trump somehow associated with frog meme magic

I'm not a Trump supporter, and I don't believe in the "meme magic" bullshit, but you gotta admit it's kinda spooky how well this old anecdote fits right now.

[Anonymous No.8652627]

>>8652617
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8652629]

Been telling you idiots on /pol this for years. It's all about money for "experts." Always has been. In the 80s, it was a huge hole supposedly in the lungs of tobacco smokers. Now somehow CO2 isn't causing the earth to over heat. Yeah ok. Kys /pol/tards.

[Anonymous No.8652631]

>>8652620
That anecdote was based on faulty science.

[Anonymous No.8652633]

>>8652566
Everyone knows climatology is the retarded stepson of actual science and probably should get a blood test to see if they are related at all.

[Anonymous No.8652637]

>>8652627
Asking for a different source at the moment is foolish because the guy was whistleblowing directly to DailyMail and the article was just published today.

Telling me to go to /pol/ is just a kneejerk reaction instead of actually wanting a discussion. I am trying to be polite and be respectful, but you're just sticking your head in the sand to any criticism.

[Anonymous No.8652641]

This is all clearly bullshit, which is why I invested in some soon to be beachfront property.

[Anonymous No.8652643]

>>8652604
>>8652607
>>8652627

Holy shit. My mom came into my room to bring me a plate of chicken nuggets and I literally screamed at her and hit the plate of chicken nuggets out of her hand. She started yelling and swearing at me and I slammed the door on her. I’m so distressed right now I don’t know what to do. I didn’t mean to do that to my mom but I’m literally in shock from the news tonight. I feel like I’m going to explode. Why the fucking fuck did they dupe the data? This can’t be happening. I’m having a fucking breakdown. I don’t want to believe the world is so corrupt. I want a future to believe in. I want the data to be just the way I envision it and to scam these countries of their precious tax dollars. I cannot fucking deal with this right now. It wasn’t supposed to be like this, I thought they were telling me the truth???? This is so fucked.

[Anonymous No.8652648]

>>8652643
tl;dr

[Anonymous No.8652650]

>>8652637
Why did he go directly to daily fail instead of a reputable media outlet?
>inb4 fake news outlets
Daily fail is much more fake.

[Anonymous No.8652652]

>>8652650
>reputable media outlet
good one

[Anonymous No.8652658]

You know what's funny, all the deniers get together at their climate conferences each year, and occasionally they pay a guy like Roy Spencer to speak at their conference. Often times Spencer is the most reasonable one in the group, despite him having many crank ideas about climate. Yet when Spencer gives talks showing how they use adjustments to better understand the data (he works with satellite data which requires a lot of error correction and temperature adjustments in order for it to be valid), or how they have to take into account errors in the instrumentation and alter the data to correct for those errors, he is lauded and praised by the climate deniers. Yet, when legitimate climate scientists engage in the same exact, valid scientific practices, it's a conspiracy, it's a fraud, it's "fudging the data," or some other such nonsense.

Or, for example, how they prop up Willie Soon, the oil-industry funded solar physicist in these conferences, a man who uses proxy reconstructions to explain how the sun is causing global warming (despite his work being ridiculed by his colleagues). But when other climate scientists like Michael Mann use proxy reconstructions on tree rings (like he did for the "Hockey stick") deniers shout at him saying how you can't use proxy reconstructions and that it's all bullshit.

Climate change deniers are full of these type of fallacies in regards to their understanding of climate science, it's actually laughable.

There's also nothing deniers hate more than being called deniers, which is also ironic considering how they have coined the term "warmist" and refer to climate scientists as "cult leaders."

Anyways, I saw this in another thread and read through it a few hours ago, well worth the read:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

[Anonymous No.8652660]

>>8652612
What could be causing tropical zones to expand globally? Any ideas? Any ideas at all?

[Anonymous No.8652661]

>>8652660
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ my friend. Man is so ignorant that he thinks he can control the climate! No man can alter God's perfection! The Bible says so!

[Anonymous No.8652662]

>>8652652
I guess those just don't exist then, right? So why post a news article from any of them? It's the media, the media can't be trusted.

[Anonymous No.8652664]

>>8652650
>>8652652
The DailyMail has a long history of posting shitty articles on climate change. It's the last place I would go for any information on scientific matters, let alone matters of any other variety.

[Anonymous No.8652667]

>>8652660
>What could be causing tropical zones to expand globally?
Deforestation leaving holes in ecosystems for new wild life to adapt? Global transportation increasing the spread of non-indigenous species?

There are other possible reasons that aren't climate change.

[Anonymous No.8652674]

>>8652662
>every day a /pol/tard comes to /sci/ and gets owned by his own arguments

[Anonymous No.8652682]

>>8652662
It's not that none of them can be trusted (although I don't automatically trust anything I read and I think doing otherwise is stupid and lazy), it's that the messenger would be shot anyway. And honestly, many aren't going to carry what doesn't confirm their bias or give them a lot of grief they aren't interested in. So the first step of anyone feeling they need to fight against a narrative or groupthink is to just get it out there one way or another. Example: National Enquirer has a lot of nonsense but they've broken a few legit scandals too.

[Anonymous No.8652684]

>>8652566

[Anonymous No.8652690]

>>8652684
Granted all three are infested with people living in their parent's basement simply regurgitating the results of their google searches.

[Anonymous No.8652693]

>>8652631
That anecdote was based in human nature.

We may boil alive without noticing it.

[Anonymous No.8652695]

>>8652690
False. I live on my parent's second floor, we don't have basements where I live.

[Anonymous No.8652703]

>>8652667
But they are all man made.

I'm getting tired of this bullshit, climate change denier steps into the white house, and suddenly...

Puff.

All goverment paid scientist agree, climate change ain't real. meanwhile my country it's burning down.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/25/chile-fire-firefighting-international-help

Literally.

[Anonymous No.8652712]

>>8652703
>But they are all man made.
But you would go about fighting deforestation and fighting non-indigenous species in a way completely different way than climate change. We aren't fixing any issues unless we are putting the effort in the right areas.
>I'm getting tired of this bullshit, climate change denier steps into the white house, and suddenly...

>Puff.

>All goverment paid scientist agree, climate change ain't real. meanwhile my country it's burning down.
Where did I say anything like that? Now you're just strawmanning really hard. It is guilt by association and not good.
>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/25/chile-fire-firefighting-international-help

>Literally.
It isn't clear what the fire has to do with you're saying to me. Are you trying to imply that global warming caused a fire like this?

It is important to remember that Chile as a country capable of keeping reliable records has only existed for several hundred years at best.

[Anonymous No.8652714]

>>8652703
>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/25/chile-fire-firefighting-international-help
How are forest fires proof for climate change? You do realize the reason why there has been a rise in fires is because of efforts by humans to control it? Nature has a way of keeping the forests in control, and eliminating surplus trees. This makes them less prone to fires. This is also why prescribed fires are a thing...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn

[Anonymous No.8652716]

>>8652620
The cartoonist doesn't even understand the "boiling a frog" idiom. Sad.

[Anonymous No.8652728]

>>8652712
>>8652714
I'll explain the connection for you,

Higher temperatures, (as it's been registered that every summer they go up), dry the grass and the weeds, so they burn more easily.

Now we have a record of 80 simultaneous fires all over the country, and it's a big country.

There's also no point to make a controlled fire this time of the year and don't start with the insurance fraud, cause or right already tried that, and less than 3% of the areas are insured.

[Anonymous No.8652729]

The part where the globe is warmer isn't evidence of global warming?
Unless every thermometer in the world is broken, most countries are experiencing record temperatures.

[Anonymous No.8652732]

>>8652728
Correlation≠causation

[Anonymous No.8652736]

>>8652728
>Higher temperatures, (as it's been registered that every summer they go up), dry the grass and the weeds, so they burn more easily.
I don't think that is inherently indicative of an inevitable trend in warming when records of such fires wouldn't have been reliably recorded. It hardly seems like conclusive evidence.

[Anonymous No.8652744]

>>8652729
The globe isn't warmer than it has been historically. See >>8652566
The data was wrong, the actual temperature is much lower.

[Anonymous No.8652755]

>>8652732
>>8652736
Look, I'm sorry, if don't take the time to calmly prove you wrong.

But the whole fucking place it's burning, and every biologist, geologist, astronomer and physicist that I know agree that it is a consequence of the rise in the temperature.

The whole country it's near the ocean so the temperature should be really stable, but it's going up at an stable rate.

Now are you going to accept this simple facts as evidence that maybe, just maybe, Me, You and every other human on the planet, have affected the climate at a global scale.

[Anonymous No.8652757]

>>8652744
Wait, do you really think that NOAA is the only organization in the world collecting temperature data?

[Anonymous No.8652764]

>>8652755
We're not the same posters, and forest fires STILL do not prove climate change!

[Anonymous No.8652768]

>>8652744

[Anonymous No.8652771]

>>8652755
>Look, I'm sorry, if don't take the time to calmly prove you wrong.
It's fine if you don't, but if you don't prove us wrong you can't reasonably ask us to believe you on your word. Especially on an anonymous image board. How can you expect people to accept "simple facts" if you can't provide them?

You haven't refuted the point of people potentially preventing fires that normally would burn out forests and would thus make fire less likely to happen in the future. Which would fit Occam's razor from someone who doesn't have knowledge on fires in Chile since before larger populations and after.

[Anonymous No.8652784]

>>8652771
Last census showed that our population aren't increasing, besides that the number of fires and the temperature rise it's compared to the last five year meassurements.

But I don't think that really matters to you, I used a cheap resource like the fact that we are burning alive, to try to shake some sense into you.

If every field of science,(not only climate science), can measure a change, you should be more humble and accept that, even if it means to agree with liberals, it's in the best interests of anyone you have ever known, to stop defending climate change deniers.

Cause they clearly don't have your best interests in mind.

[Anonymous No.8652800]

>>8652784
>Last census showed that our population aren't increasing, besides that the number of fires and the temperature rise it's compared to the last five year meassurements.
I think you missed my point. It's that before larger human populations and industrial scale efforts to prevent fires may have lead to overgrowth that is now unable to be stopped by previous measures. Not only that, our ability to record things like this could very easily lead to over reactions to things that may or may not have been normal in the past.
>But I don't think that really matters to you, I used a cheap resource like the fact that we are burning alive, to try to shake some sense into you.
It would matter to me if what you were saying proved what you asserted it did. You are already preparing to turn off the discussion and instead turn it into a lecture where you are the one educating the "misguided". This is the antithesis of science. Yet you tell me to be more humble.
>If every field of science,(not only climate science), can measure a change, you should be more humble and accept that, even if it means to agree with liberals, it's in the best interests of anyone you have ever known, to stop defending climate change deniers.
I will accept it when you provide proof that these fires are being caused by increases in temperature and not just ASSERT that experts saying it means it is right. Without even providing a link to any said experts opinions.
>Cause they clearly don't have your best interests in mind.
The repeated guilt tripping and condescension doesn't make your assertions any more true.

[Anonymous No.8652819]

>>8652768
It's not warmer.

[Anonymous No.8652823]

>>8652768
Your own image shows that it's been warmer historically than it is now.

[Anonymous No.8652826]

>>8652823
Can /pol/ people read? This post shows that they cannot.

[Anonymous No.8652827]

>>8652768
> posting the hockey stick like it means something
That was debunked almost a decade ago now. Get some new material.

[Anonymous No.8652828]

>>8652800
Ok here it's study from the department of geophysics.

http://dgf.uchile.cl/rene/PUBS/articles-39442_pdf_Estudio_texto.pdf

Hope you can read spanish.

[Anonymous No.8652839]

any actual historical temperature record, prior to the 80's is literally all guesswork

Micro-climate changes in urbanized areas accounts for the land temperature increase

[Anonymous No.8652840]

>>8652828
>Hope you can read spanish.
I can't, but thank you for providing it anyways.

[Anonymous No.8652841]

>>8652828
And here is the study made by the department of agriculture, for the impact on the crops.

http://www.odepa.cl/wp-content/files_mf/1388169148cambioClimatico.pdf

This shows how the rise in temperture may affect the areas that are being affected by the fires.

[Anonymous No.8652846]

>>8652823
>>8652819
No one disputes that you dumb fucks. It's been warmer in the past, it's been colder, that's meaningless in the context of the current climate trend.

>>8652827
>debunked
Hate to tell you that you're wrong, and it's been confirmed by multiple independent studies since your so called "debunking."
http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.abstract
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235885717_A_Reconstruction_of_Regional_and_Global_Temperature_for_the_Past_11300_Yearshttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html

From Marcott et al. 2013
>Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

Don't believe whatever horse-shit you read on "skeptic" blogs.

[Anonymous No.8652869]

>>8652827
Also see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

Also Mann published a book on the controversy surrounding the "Hockey stick" a few years ago, good read if you want to understand it better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hockey_Stick_and_the_Climate_Wars

In terms of the warming here's a video summarizing the temperature anomalies using data from 1880-2015, notice how the temperature anomaly is highest in the arctic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGOzHVUQCw0

[Anonymous No.8652873]

Finally, here is temperature data showing the current warming trend from multiple data sources. Notice how they all correlated very closely with each other, despite the analysis being separate.

[Anonymous No.8652875]

>>8652606
Tell that to Putin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbrKLnh8wLA

[Anonymous No.8653338]

we've long known the earth's climate has cycles. how many periods of glaciation? The whole argument is about whether or not humankind has influenced this latest upward swing.
One thing for certain (((they))) always want MORE. MORE money & MORE power. And this whole thing stinks of manipulation just to justify another tax.

[Anonymous No.8653438]

>>8653338
If you make less than 900K/yr USD nobody in power is making enough money off you to give a shit.

[Anonymous No.8653455]

>>8652600
>>8652606
We have this thread every day.

[Anonymous No.8653462]

>>8652841
>>8652846
>>8652828
>>8652869
>>8652873
>>8652658
gud work

[Anonymous No.8653539]

>>8652658
>Anyways, I saw this in another thread and read through it a few hours ago, well worth the read:
>https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data

Arstechnica has just gotten slapped by reality. By well documented climate data shenanigans
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

So too late buddy, the cat's out of the bag. The eminent Climate Scientist Dr. Bates has blown the whistle. Of course,
at this, point, you will do everything to destroy his reputation. So lets have a look at it:

>Dr. Bates’ technical expertise lies in atmospheric sciences, and his interests include satellite observations of the global water and energy cycle, air-sea interactions, and climate variability. His most highly cited papers are in observational studies of long term variability and trends in atmospheric water vapor and clouds.

>NOAA Administrator’s Award 2004 for “outstanding administration and leadership in developing a new division to meet the challenges to NOAA in the area of climate applications related to remotely sensed data”. He was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs). He has held elected positions at the American Geophysical Union (AGU), including Member of the AGU Council and Member of the AGU Board. He has played a leadership role in data management for the AGU.

PS The NOAA has also been caught completely making up "warmest ever" data in Africa. See the attached pic, impressive, huh?

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201612.gif

[Anonymous No.8653544]

>>8653539
>PS The NOAA has also been caught completely making up "warmest ever" data in Africa. See the attached pic, impressive, huh?
>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201612.gif

Turns out it was all Fake Data. Pic related.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201612.gif

[Anonymous No.8653545]

>>8652650
>Why did he go directly to daily fail instead of a reputable media outlet?
Why did Edward Snowden pick The Guardian instead of the BBC?
Why did Seth Rich go to Wikileaks instead of CNN?

Media outlets aren't infallible - they have agendas, they have biases, they have narratives that they want to push or suppress. If you're going to risk your livelihood by becoming a whisteblower, you need to pick an outlet that you know will at least publish what you have to say... even if not everyone will take that source seriously.


It doesn't help that we've come to a point where certain topics in science have become sacred cows and any critical discussion of them is basically a career-ending move, regardless of how valid the criticism.

>The findings of this paper on global warming are interesting, but I have some questions about the methods you used for measuring this data and your data reduction procedure.
>ANTI-SCIENCE FASCIST! WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL THE PLANET!?

>Different 'races' are more or less the same, but there are clearly small, but distinct, biological differences that warrant medical treatments, social strategies, etc tailored to their ethnic group.
>RACIST! GO BACK TO YOUR KKK MEETING!

>Maybe we should look at the long term effects of SRT before we start recommending parents put their six year-old on hormones and cut their penis off.
>BIGOT! TRANSPHOBE! HOW DARE YOU INFRINGE ON HER RIGHTS??


My plasma physics professor spent years trying to get someone to publish his findings on the problems and limitations of Langmuir probe measurements - even though nearly all of his criticisms turned out to be completely valid, nobody wanted to publish a paper that concluded that many measurements made by other researchers might not be valid.

[Anonymous No.8653550]

>>8653455
Hurr, durr, when an eminent climate scientist Blows the Whistle, I'll post a meme.

That'll teach 'em.

[Anonymous No.8653565]

>>8652846
Ah yes, the fraudulent Marcott. The guy who redated proxies to make the hockey stick temperatures go up instead of going down. It was his own way of "hiding the decline.| But he got caught. and had to walk his nonsense back in RealClimate, "Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

The irony here is incredible. Anon posted fraudulent data to defend data fraud. Would anyone other than a shill do such a thing?

PS Shill anon will now proceed to say that the late 20th century data is irrelevant even though that data is exactly what's relevant.

[Anonymous No.8653596]

>>8653545
Those "sacred cows" you're talking about aren't opinions or best guesses that are open to discussion or debate - they're scientifically accepted FACTS, and it's not our place as scientists to question them.

[Anonymous No.8653668]

>>8653596
>they're scientifically accepted FACTS, and it's not our place as scientists to question them
You know... I've read a lot of stupid shit on /sci/ over the years... but this might take the cake.

[Anonymous No.8653670]

>>8653596
>make sure not to fall for it

[Anonymous No.8653677]

>>8653670
kek, why is /pol/ so bad at falseflagging? they're really obvious when they do it

Also, I hope you don't mind if I save that image ;)

[Anonymous No.8653679]

>>8653565
>walk his nonsense back
Let's look at the rest of the quote:
>Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval
To put it in words you can understand, they were building a record of the past 11 kyr, and current warming hasn't been going on long enough to get a statistically robust look at it from their work. HOWEVER, the direct instrumental record confirms the warming trend independently.

>I took a photo of a skyscraper and it looks like the building narrows at the top
>>but the top is too far away! at this distance you can't be entirely sure!
>well no, but someone else took a photo of the top, and their photo proves that it's narrower
>>HA! So you ADMIT you can't be sure! WARMISTS BTFO

[Anonymous No.8653687]

>>8653677
Save it, it's all yours my friend :)

[Anonymous No.8653693]

>>8653545
Science holds itself to a higher standard. There's nothing wrong with questioning established explanations or theories, but you've got to have the evidence to back your counterargument up. Your professor had a theory which disagreed with the accepted consensus, and he had to work really hard to get enough evidence to make a convincing enough argument to overrule any concerns of those supporting the established model.

That's how science works - the accepted model stands until an alternative with better evidence comes along.

Now, with all that said, yes, there is undoubtedly a lot of social and financial pressure coming from groups outside the scientific community that are pushing for scientific conclusions that support their own agenda or narrative and make it easier for those they agree with and more difficult for those they disagree with. It's almost a universal truth that both sides of any issue will be guilty of this.

Drug companies suppress studies that say a given drug has problems, but opponents of pharmaceuticals or vaccinations will push unverified reports that a proven drug treatment is bad. Oil companies will quash environmental studies criticizing their practices, but groups like Greenpeace demonize alternatives like nuclear and natural gas because it doesn't fit their agenda.


I don't know if Bates's concerns are credible or not, but what is for certain here is that he clearly should have gotten all his proof lined up before he went public, and he should have picked a better fucking "news" outlet to go to than the Daily fucking Mail.

[Anonymous No.8653700]

>>8653670
>>8653677
>SJWtards trying to steal /pol/ memes
what a time to be alive...

[Anonymous No.8653709]

>>8653670
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
who are you trying to fool dumbfuck? /sci/ can smell your disgusting stench from miles away.

[Anonymous No.8653731]

>>8653700
>calls everyone who disagrees with him a SJWtard
>gets triggered whenever someone tells him to go back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8653744]

>>8653731
>calls entire /sci/ for fact-checking and calling out your desperate bullshit
>>gets triggered whenever someone tells him to fuck off back to >>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.8653751]

>>8653744
Are you the guy who spams 'SJWtard' over and over again whenever you get butthurt?

[Anonymous No.8653760]

>>8653744
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8653784]

>>8653751
>>8653760
>SJWtard tears
ssshhh...nobody wants you here. leave /sci/ and go back to >>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.8653786]

>>8653744
>"""fact-checking"""
:^)

[Anonymous No.8653787]

>>8653731
I don't get it, is the respond to linking to /pol/ supposed to be pro-/pol/ or anti-/pol/. What are the author of this pic's thoughts on /pol/? I need to know before I can accept it.

[Anonymous No.8653790]

>>8653784
>accused of getting triggered whenever someone tells him to go back to >>>/pol/
>gets triggered EVERY SINGLE TIME
>muh SJWtard
>muh leddit
dance, puppet, dance!

[Anonymous No.8653792]

>>8653787
/sci/ doesn't want to hear anything /pol/ has to say and /pol/ doesn't want to hear anything /sci/ has to say.

Both sides know the other are wrong about some important things.

[Anonymous No.8653795]

>>8653784
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8653801]

>>8653792
>/pol/ and /sci/ are a person
And thats how you spot the desperate SJWtard shitter trying to invade /sci/. We don't want your childish name-calling and your pathetic attempts to divide this board. /sci/ is in complete opposition with SJWtards and nobody will take you seriously here no matter how much you cry "pol"

Go back to whatever anus you crawled out of.

[Anonymous No.8653807]

>>8653801
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8653812]

>>8653801
>ignorant /pol/ opinions
>gets laughed at
>"I'm not from /pol/, I'm the REAL /sci/!"
>youhavetogoback.bmp
>"normies gettout REEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
>gets laughed at some more
>continues to shit his pants with rage every time someone references /pol/
every single day, three threads per day

[Anonymous No.8653814]

>>8653787
SJWtards think unless you're pro-illegal immigration, pro-BLM, pro-fake sciences, pro-minority crime, pro-pedophilia, pro-feminist, pro-transgender, pro-jihad and pro-jewish supremacy you aren't /sci/.

Thats why they call 99% of people they see here /pol/ and thats why everyone is their enemy. We made a daily ritual to make fun of SJWtards here on a daily basis and watch them cry "pol" everytime they get cornered. Join the fun.

[Anonymous No.8653819]

>>8653807
>>8653812
you're just proving his point really...

[Anonymous No.8653825]

>>8653819
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8653829]

>>8652566
Climate change is a satire on /sci/. We all know it's /x/ tinfoiler content.

[Anonymous No.8653833]

>>8652615
Straight out of the school for the mentally impared
The whole in the ozone was a big thing that finally covered up when we banned cfc's. Go back to infowars

[Anonymous No.8653844]

>>8653814
>if you don't think climatology is some kind of Rothschild meme you must also subscribe to these other mutually contradictory ideologies that I don't like
look, this sort of shit is why it's so easy to spot the /pol/esmoker on /sci/: they unironically believe that there is a massive conspiracy to do something vague and nebulous involving taking over the world and making anime illegal. and when anyone disagrees with their sainted opinions in any single way (much less posts evidence rebutting those opinions), that immediately means they must be part of the conspiracy.
which makes this:
>Thats why they call 99% of people they see here /pol/ and thats why everyone is their enemy.
hilariously ironic. projecting much, friendo?
(notice also that when you tell someone to go to reddit or tumblr, they usually just go "yeah whatever". but when you tell someone to go back to /pol/ they almost invariably flip the fuck out. I guess it hits a nerve.)

you'll notice that there's shitposting and argument in all sorts of threads here on /sci/, and nobody gets told to go back to /pol/ in most of them. it's only when you guys start going on with the
>climatology is a meme
>blacks are genetically inferior
>women are subhuman
bullshit that you're told to take it back where you belong.

[Anonymous No.8653847]

>>8653844
sshhh...no tears now SJWtard. put your tinfoil fedora on and walk away.

[Anonymous No.8653851]

>>8653814
>We
95% of it is you posting over and over again.

>>/sci/?search_op=all&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_del=dontcare&offset=0&ghost=yes&search_filename=trigglypuff&search_res=post&task=search2&search_capcode=all

Isn't it time to get a real hobby instead of having an asthma attack every time someone tells you to go back to >>>/pol/?

[Anonymous No.8653854]

>>8653851
>same filename has to be the same poster
>buttmad enough to announce his tears with OC
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Are SJWtards really this retarded?

[Anonymous No.8653859]

>>8653854
>he doesn't know how image hashes work
All of those posts are you until proven otherwise.

[Anonymous No.8653860]

>>8653854
>same filename
>same post every time
>n-no, I swear there are dozens of us!
>DOZENS!

[Anonymous No.8653862]

>>8653851
>mfw this retard thinks the whole crowd making fun of it is the same person
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y69tkCbeC5o

oh my...

[Anonymous No.8653865]

>>8653862
Hey there are 800K views on this video. Must be the same person

[Anonymous No.8653868]

>>8653844
>they unironically believe that there is a massive conspiracy to do something vague and nebulous involving taking over the world
Just because someone is a conspiracy theorist doesn't mean there are no conspiracies.

[Anonymous No.8653869]

>>8653862
>>8653854
samefag

[Anonymous No.8653872]

>>8653868
>Just because someone is a conspiracy theorist doesn't mean there are no conspiracies.
wow so deep anon

really made me think

[Anonymous No.8653874]

another climate change thread, another SJWtard cancer BTFO
im getting the hang of it now

[Anonymous No.8653877]

>>8653868
How's that swamp draining going /pol/ :^).

[Anonymous No.8653879]

I don't get the whole shitstorm about climate change. People already say that it's inevitable even if we do cut off CO2 emissions. Why waste so much time talking about this shit?

[Anonymous No.8653880]

>>8653862
>Dallas Chimpout
>Swagstika
>Hey Jude - /pol/ edition
>All Wars Are Bankers' Wars
>Crippled America Book Trailer

>shrilly insists he's not from /pol/
>posts WewTube link to unironically /pol/ channel
>still trying to claim he's actually a whole crowd despite the posting patterns
congratulations, you played yourself

fwiw, there are probably at least three people represented in the pic that guy posted. there's a gif, a webm with text, and a webm without text

[Anonymous No.8653881]

>>8653880
>swagstika
noice

[Anonymous No.8653882]

>>8653879
Shit gets worse much faster, a lot of simulations are under the assumption that we actually start cutting fossil fuel use.

[Anonymous No.8653883]

>>8653882
But what is the next step? CO2 emissions is just a relatively small factor of a big list that warms up the temperature. Is there anything else we can do to fix things?

[Anonymous No.8653885]

>>8653880
I think one guy posts the webm and gif, judging by his diction and phrasing. Gonna write a ML tool to track people on 4chan with semantic analysis, since he'll probably start changing his image hashes now.

[Anonymous No.8653886]

>>8653883
One of the biggest things is to stop eating meat, or if you must eat meat then don't eat cow. It's crazy how much heating is attributed to the beef industry.

[Anonymous No.8653887]

>>8653886
eating meet is related to global warming ?

[Anonymous No.8653900]

>>8653885
>ill track semantic analysis FEAR ME!
>guise these two users are using similar words so it my evidence that they're the same people
The brainlet strikes again...

[Anonymous No.8653904]

>>8653887
not only do cows produce a lot of methane, they're incredibly resource-intensive to raise
lab grown burgers when?

[Anonymous No.8653907]

>>8653854
>this terrible damage control

[Anonymous No.8653911]

>>8653904
well I'm sure you're not gonna be able to convince the world to go vegetarian or beat meatgrinders like mcdonalds, burgerking, kfc...
what else can be done ?

[Anonymous No.8653915]

>>8653907
>I reply last so I win

[Anonymous No.8653916]

>>8653879
>people say
stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.8653918]

>>8653915
>I reply last so I win

[Anonymous No.8653922]

>>8653918
>I reply last so I win

[Anonymous No.8653926]

>>8653860
The evidence is pretty damn convincing. That's why climate denial doesn't really spring from careful examination of evidence or reasoned discussion, it's the product of political ideology. In the U.S., this is called backlash, or backlash ideology. It started in the late sixties, as America was changing and becoming increasingly progressive. The backlash continues today. The heart of backlash ideology is that hardworking Americans across the country are victimized by an intellectual elite. This elect, of course, is always liberal. The liberal elite wants to brainwash children so they become liberals and vote for more liberals, and the cycle continues. It's a wonderful mythology that puts the ''hard working American patriot'' against a latte-sipping New York intellectual. In this story, the godly, gun-toting, working man gets to be David and the evil liberals get to be Goliath.

Of course it's just a fantasy. Elite status isn't connected to your political beliefs, it's connected to your bank account. Money is speech in the United States, and it has been for an awfully long time. The culture war, and its generals, know this. They just don't dwell too much on topics of economic well-being, because then they wouldn't have a real argument for turning the country against liberals, which asking them to sacrifice their material well-being so that the wealthy can become even more wealthy.

[Anonymous No.8653928]

>>8652588

[Anonymous No.8653931]

>>8653911
Learn to do your own research, seriously. Global warming is just one issue that comes from people not educating themselves and relying on others for spoon feeding. Whenever you have a question about anything then do your best to find the answer. The best reason to do science is to not be fooled by other scientists.

[Anonymous No.8653937]

>>8652873
how come "uncorrected" data is bad?

[Anonymous No.8653939]

>>8653928

[Anonymous No.8653947]

Also, since climate change is a lie someone should tell Exxon. Here is their position:

We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.

[Anonymous No.8653954]

>>8653937
There are many reasons. In general however, temperature data from earlier times is just not as accurate, and is known to have a lot of biases that can give it a warming or cooling effect.

An example of this is ocean temperature records. In the old days, they measured SST by using ropes and metal buckets. Evaporation before a temperature was measured could lead to a cooling bias in the data. For SST today though, it's measured using ARGO arrays and Buoys in the oceans. Ship temperature records are also used, but they too have biases that must be adjusted for, as ship engines give off a lot of heat, giving the data a slight warming bias that must be corrected.
See here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php
>Existing data have well documented biases in them.The most important bias globally was the modification in measured sea surface temperatures associated with the change from ships throwing a bucket over the side, bringing some ocean water on deck, and putting a thermometer in it, to reading the thermometer in the engine coolant water intake. The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations so the early data have been adjusted warmer to remove that bias. This makes global temperatures indicate less warming than the raw data. The NOAA Sea Surface Temperature bias-correction method that is applied to the historical data from the 1940’s and earlier is based on a comparison between nighttime marine air temperatures and SSTs from ICOADS.

[Anonymous No.8653963]

>>8653947
Exxon says this shit only to appease their shareholders. The company still gives out millions to entities like Donor's Trust / Donor's Capital Fund every year, as well as funding to think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and American Legislative Exchange Council, just a few example of monetary non-profit recipients of Exxonmobil funding in recent years. They used to find entities like Heartland Institute, George C. Marshall and others like them, but pressure from their shareholders got them to stop this practice around 2007.
Exxon will do what it needs to do to have a positive PR spin, and make it seem like they care about climate change, but behind the scenes they don't care, and continue to fund misinformation efforts.

[Anonymous No.8654005]

>>8653887
>eating meet is related to global warming ?

To an immense degree, actually. That's something climate change scientists never talk about, because telling people to go vegetarian is unpopular.

But yes, land based animal agriculture is a huge contributor to climate change - the waste it produces is staggering. We're talking something along the lines of 40 gallons of water just to produce a single hamburger patty. It's pretty fucked.

[Anonymous No.8654007]

>>8653887
>>8654005

My bad - actually 441 gallons of water for one pound of boneless beef - 110 for a quarter pound hamburger - according to a UC Davis study.

[Anonymous No.8654150]

>>8652664
This.

>>8653926
Look up cultural cognition and you'll start seeing the emerging research that shows how political ideology and worldview modulate people's processing and acceptance of various kinds of information.

[Anonymous No.8654153]

>>8654005
Don't forget all the methane emissions. Methane often gets overlooked because it's a less-emitted GHG, even though it's way more potent than CO2.

[Anonymous No.8654254]

>>8653931
This. As a scientist, I can tell everyone to pursue a real science degree (not one involving climatology or with "science" tacked onto it like "social science"). On graduation, look around at the others who achieved a real science degree. These fucktards are scientists now. Then ask yourself how much you will trust their work and be glad you have some idea of how to check it.

[Anonymous No.8654781]

>>8653679
>To put it in words you can understand, they were building a record of the past 11 kyr, and current warming hasn't been going on long enough to get a statistically robust look at it from their work. HOWEVER, the direct instrumental record confirms the warming trend independently.

Hey dummy, if the direct instrumental record doesn't agree with the current proxies, then you can't trust the proxies from a time when there isn't a direct instrumental record. Because You Have No Instrumental Records to Compare it To.

[Anonymous No.8654786]

>>8652873
>Finally, here is temperature data showing the current warming trend from multiple data sources. Notice how they all correlated very closely with each other, despite the analysis being separate

Except the fundamental data source in all cases is the GHCN. And the "analysis" approach is largely the same. Cool the past with TOB adjustments. Homogenize the data which mixes mostly bad data (about 80% ; stations rated 3-5) with good data; creating crap.

Oh, and almost never document the "adjustments" in actual graphs of the data.

[Anonymous No.8654794]

>>8653954
>as ship engines give off a lot of heat, giving the data a slight warming bias that must be corrected.
And yet the NOAA substituted bad ship intake data for relatively clean buoy data in their "pause buster" paper.

[Anonymous No.8654795]

>>8654254
Climatology is a hard science, sounds like you didn't actually study the field and are making judgments without any knowledge about it. Dunning Kruger hard at work here.

[Anonymous No.8654977]

>>8654781
>if the direct instrumental record doesn't agree with the current proxies, then you can't trust the proxies from a time when there isn't a direct instrumental record
that would be a good point if the direct instrumental record didn't CONFIRM the recent warming trend.
reading comprehension is crucial.

>>8654794
>the NOAA substituted bad ship intake data for relatively clean buoy data
using ship intake data allows for much better coverage of oceans than just relying on buoys. and it's easy to quantify the offset from ship intakes; remember, a clock that's always two minutes fast is just as useful as a clock that's always on time.

[Anonymous No.8655055]

>>8653539
>>8653544
>Turns out it was all Fake Data.
See the other thread (where you made a nearly identical post) for responses to Goddard's stupidity:
>>8654944
>>8655023

As for the whole David Rose article on the Daily Mail, please refer to this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/05/mail-on-sunday-launches-the-first-salvo-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists
Also, a further response to the article from Hausfather:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

As for John Bates:
>never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) misrepresentation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these misrepresentations are publically verifiable.
From a colleague that actually worked on the NOAA paper.
I really think you should take a few steps back, and not jump to conclusions based on things you read on the Daily Mail or climate denial blogs. Always make sure to vet and fact check your information.

[Anonymous No.8655063]

As it turns out though, BASE LINES MATTER!
>This comparison ends up being spurious, because each record uses a different baseline period to define their temperature anomaly. As the chart below shows, when you correctly put the two datasets on the same baseline (eg, with respect to the 1961-1990 period), you find no offset in recent years between the two, though there is slightly more warming in the NOAA dataset due to the higher weight they give more reliable buoy data in their analysis.

This is basically what the David Rose article in the DM did, he used two different data sets with different baselines and compared them together.

When you use the two datasets with the same baseline, surprise, they correlate very well.

[Anonymous No.8655109]

>>8652566
>dailymail.co.uk
L0Lno fgt pls

[Anonymous No.8655212]

Pseudo science

[Anonymous No.8655265]

>>8654005
> because telling people to go vegetarian is unpopular.
Technically you don't need to be totally vegetarian, you just need to learn to get comfortable with the idea of eating grasshoppers. There are some ways of producing meat that aren't colossally resource intensive, they just involve things that people generally don't think of as food.

[Anonymous No.8655617]

>>8654005
>To an immense degree, actually
Really the only problem is that we have too many people. We should drop the pop to 100m or so and like 99% of the problem would just be gone overnight.

[Anonymous No.8656853]

>>8654977
>>>8654781
>>if the direct instrumental record doesn't agree with the current proxies, then you can't trust the proxies from a time when there isn't a direct instrumental record
>that would be a good point if the direct instrumental record didn't CONFIRM the recent warming trend.
>reading comprehension is crucial.
You are completely missing the point. The instrumental records shows that the proxy data is unreliable. Therefore the proxy construction is unscientific.


>>>8654794
>>the NOAA substituted bad ship intake data for relatively clean buoy data
>using ship intake data allows for much better coverage of oceans than just relying on buoys. and it's easy to quantify the offset from ship intakes; remember, a clock that's always two minutes fast is just as useful as a clock that's always on time.
You're forgetting that they regressed the buoy data to the ship data. (Not vice versa.) Yes, they were adjusted upwards by 0.12 degrees to fit with ship data.

Unchanged buoy data was much closer to having a flat trend.

[Anonymous No.8656863]

>>8655055
>>>8653539
>>>8653544
>>Turns out it was all Fake Data.
>See the other thread (where you made a nearly identical post) for responses to Goddard's insight:
>>8654944 →

>>8654944 →
>The map in the picture "blends" or averages temperatures across the entire map.
>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201612
>It literally says it right on the map
>>December 2016 Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature Percentiles
>>Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature
>Keyword here is Blended.
You're trying, but you're painfully unconvincing. The blending, of course is for the purpose of calculating percentiles and/or other relevant statistics.. Not "blending" temperatures in the middle of Africa with the sea's temperatures.

>Once again it's a case of someone that doesn't understand the data cherrypicking.
>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/blended-global
>>We produce various high-level datasets and products that are generated by blending together observations from various platforms and instruments, as well as by merging data over different geographic domains, for example, over both land and ocean surfaces for globally covered products.
Nope buddy. You're struggling here. That's called using global (or whatever is being looked at) temps as a mean value (or something similar) for calculating percentiles or other relevant statistics.

>Also see:
>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/noaa-global-surface-temperature-noaaglobaltemp
>If you're still confused you could always reach out by contacting someone at NOAA and asking them to explain it to you.
I'm not confused; I thought I'd give you a shot at trying to explain this. But you didn't, you just explained it away. Creating an earth's surface dataset via SST and GHCN data does not make 80 years of internal Africa data magically disappear. But nice try.

[Anonymous No.8656866]

>>8655055
>>>8653539
>>>8653544
>>Turns out it was all Fake Data.
>See the other thread (where you made a nearly identical post) for responses to Goddard's insight:
>>>8654944 →
>>8655023 →

>>8655023 →
>"In order to place the month, season, or year into historical perspective, each grid point's temperature values for the time period of interest (for example all August values from 1880 to 2012) are sorted from warmest to coolest, with ranks assigned to each value. The numeric rank represents the position of that particular value throughout the historical record. The length of record increases with each year. It is important to note that each grid point's period of record may vary, but all grid points displayed in the map have a minimum of 80 years of data. For the global temperature anomaly record, the data does extend back to 1880."

And exactly how would 80 years worth of data make it impossible to calculate an anomaly (from a 30 year reference value covered by said 80 years)? In reality, it would make it perfectly possible. Yet, somehow that data is missing from this graph:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201612.gif

Again, nice try.

[Anonymous No.8656869]

>>8655055
>As for the whole David Rose article on the Daily Mail, please refer to this article:
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/05/mail-on-sunday-launches-the-first-salvo-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists
Absolutely; a war against Dr. John Bates
>Also, a further response to the article from Hausfather:
>https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

Here comes the spin. NOAA scientists attack a (former) NOAA scientist.But read this, Dr Curry debunks the "debunkers"
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

And Dr. John Bates has his own say:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

[Anonymous No.8656884]

>>8656853
>The instrumental records shows that the proxy data is unreliable. Therefore the proxy construction is unscientific.
So your claim is that because the instrumental records concur with the proxy reconstruction, the proxies are unreliable? That's downright retarded.
Or are you saying that the proxies are unreliable because they record a coarser time series and miss short-term fluctuations? Because that's a wholly separate issue, and it's perfectly reasonable to use different metrics for different timescales; it's all about what interval you're interested in.

>they regressed the buoy data to the ship data. (Not vice versa.) Yes, they were adjusted upwards by 0.12 degrees to fit with ship data.
>Unchanged buoy data was much closer to having a flat trend.
a big fat fucking [citation needed] on that claim, big boy.

[Anonymous No.8656912]

>>8656863
>The blending, of course is for the purpose of calculating percentiles and/or other relevant statistics.. Not "blending" temperatures in the middle of Africa with the sea's temperatures.
Did you read the NCEI page? I mean, you included the relevant part in the excerpt from the post you're responding to, but I don't think you ACTUALLY READ IT, because it kinda directly contradicts you. Here, I'll quote it again directly for you:
>We produce various high-level datasets and products that are generated by blending together observations from various platforms and instruments, as well as by merging data over different geographic domains, for example, over both land and ocean surfaces for globally covered products.
How pathetic is it to make a claim, and then in the same post to quote a source that proves your claim wrong? Wew.

>That's called using global (or whatever is being looked at) temps as a mean value (or something similar) for calculating percentiles or other relevant statistics.
Nice word salad, but that's not actually true (or really relevant). NCEI is pretty clear that they integrate various datasets, differing in geographic locality and in measurement techniques. That's not JUST global averages; that's also for interpolating across a poorly sampled area.

>>8656866
>And exactly how would 80 years worth of data make it impossible to calculate an anomaly (from a 30 year reference value covered by said 80 years)? In reality, it would make it perfectly possible.
That's referring to the combined data set drawing on both GHCN AND ERSST. I know this is a difficult concept to understand, but please bear with me here: IF YOU HAVE MORE DATA, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO DRAW MORE CONCLUSIONS

[Anonymous No.8656918]

>>8656869
>Dr Curry debunks the "debunkers"
Did you actually read it? Dr. Curry's conclusions are basically that there was no scientific malfeasance or dishonesty, but she still thinks the scientists should be extra special careful with what they release because it involves regulation of industry. (This is because she's an actual skeptic, not a contrarian fuckwit.)
Also, she complains about the Daily Mail being called a worthless rag or something (it is a worthless rag with a long history of slanted and unreliable reporting) and she talks about the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology as if it's actually interested in listening to science (as opposed to its usual business of harassing climatologists).

[Anonymous No.8656922]

>>8656863
>>8656866
>>8656869
Holy fucking shit, can you please learn how to fucking greentext and reply to posts properly, what a clusterfuck.

[Anonymous No.8656980]

>>8656853
>You're forgetting that they regressed the buoy data to the ship data. (Not vice versa.) Yes, they were adjusted upwards by 0.12 degrees to fit with ship data.
That makes no difference at all, because the choice of baseline is arbitrary. It's the trend that people care about, so they could have added 12C and it would still be fine.

[Anonymous No.8657487]

>>8652771
Preventing fires? In Chile? Where is your proof of that assertion?

[Anonymous No.8657535]

>>8652602
>to prove climate change
Let me guess, you have no experience in actual research?