62 share - a hit with the readers
When a person or a political party institutionalizes deception for the sake of the greater good, they are not to be trusted at any level. ~ J Smithson, editor. 
Now, from Breitbart: Scientists
at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been
caught . . . . manipulating temperature
data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".
The
evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real
Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs
which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments. . . . .
. Before 2000, it was generally accepted
- even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen - that the hottest decade
in the US
As Hansen
himself said in a 1989 report:
In the U.S. US US
This is a really interesting study on information authenticity and critical thinking ability. Look where Smithson references his "information" on science. Is it truly science from a scientific source or organization? Is it from a non-partisan government agency ... like the US Military? Hell no.
ReplyDeleteIt's from a political blogger like Breitbart with an unabashed political agenda. Breitbart cite Steven Goddard. Who is Goddard? It is an alias for Tony Heller, a guy who doesn't want people to know his real name... and why has has gone to such lengths to keep his identity hidden and his blog's web domain has been blocked from any identifying ip? Because he's a 'yes man' who promotes politically motivated and polluter (Koch) funded groups like the Heartland. He is a paid science denier, like Anthony Watts. He is best known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard was forced to issue a retraction on his statement, which was proven false. Tony Heller is not a climate scientist, not even close, a masters in electrical engineering. But, as long as a blogger has anti-Obama items and Fox News all over his website, now that's a source to be trusted for "REAL science."
Forget about those silly scientific organizations and PhD Climate Scientists. They are not to be trusted. Also, the US Navy is in on "the conspiracy" as their plan of action regarding climate change reveals that since their initial '09 plan, the updated US NAVY Task Force Report on Climate Change 2/14 states, "Over the past four years, The Task Force in consultation and collaboration with broader government and private scientific communities, has concluded that ice conditions in the Arctic are changing more rapidly than first anticipated. ...The Task Force acknowledges the role climate change plays in energy security, research and science, the economy, fisheries, tourism, the assertion of sovereignty, and other related issues. ...Due to the significant retreat of sea ice, previously unreachable areas have started to open for maritime use several weeks each year."
- Admiral J. Greenert, US NAVY
http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/files/2014/02/USN-Arctic-Roadmap-2014.pdf
This case study should give readers insight into Smithson's evaluation of sources, his scientific literacy, and his critical thinking ability.
Two things: first, there is no such thing as a "non-partisan government agency" when it comes to the hysterical global warming issue. In fact, federal leadership and agency heads want to criminalize all opposition debate regarding this fantasy.
DeleteIn an article written some days ago, I presented a government generated chart recording world temp averages for the past 16+ years. It proves a consistent or slightly declining temp average.
Secondly, progressive distributionists believe in the "ends and means" strategy described in Saul Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals -- whether they have read that book or not. Therefore, and I say it again, there can be no trust extended to "authorities" and "scientists" who revel in such polemic theatrics. These are people who will intentionally lie “for the greater good.”
Is my charge (above), the end of the debate? Of course not, but to suppose that we are having an honest debate is preposterous, under the circumstances. In fact, a serious student of politics, would expect deceit to play a role in the Left's positioning, since it is the Left that believes in "ends and means." I have no intentions of letting this part of the argument, go. If you believe you can lie to accomplish good, then you need to answer for that crap. It is this very sort of thing that gave us ObamaCare . . . . . one lie stacked on top of another, with the Administration controlling all of the numerical information officially presented in ObamaCare's defense.
Understand that data used in this blog includes charted information (from federal sources) showing mean temp readings since 1998. Of the 16 years, since that time, only 4 years have matched or exceeded the 1998 levels, and it is 1998 that is being questioned as to honest reporting. This information comes from a survey of temps recorded by government satellite sites (RSS) . It is common knowledge that warming trends are on "pause," at the present time. What warming has taken place before 1998 (about .3 degrees C) has occurred at night and does nothing but increase the growing season. Understand that this 16 year pause, again, documented by Federal sensing systems, has occurred during a time when greenhouse gases have been on the rise, putting into question the connection between greenhouse gases and mean temps. The reader is directed to this site: http://www.scilogs.de/klimalounge/files/Cowtan2.jpg. It is one maintained by believers in global warming. As you read, be careful to note the implicit "pause" in mean temp readings, to which I refer.
You should know that the 1930’s is the warmest decade in history. And if the Alarmists challenge that conclusion, certainly this is an undebateable fact: rising temps, today, are only, just now, rising to the temp averages of the ‘30’s. Averages go up and down, that is what is in evidence, and little more.
Finally, my critic simply cannot entertain a debate without going ad hominem. In debate, ad hom arguments include name calling, change of subject or straw dog discussions, false information, and appeals to prejudice, all of which appear in the remarks of Anonymous, above. When an opponent goes “ad hom,” it usually means his arguments are weak and cannot stand on their own merits.
He criticizes my blog as if only a climate scientist has a right to an opinion in this matter. Well, news flash, neither my opponent nor I are climate scientists, yet, here we are in this debate. I am as entitled to my read of the evidence as he is. More than this, climate scientists, per se, are not the only individuals equipped to read and present climate evidence. Your every day local weatherman, if a certified meteorologist, can be considered an expert in these matters, as well.
And the debate goes on.
Readers, you've got to see a problem with someone who can't talk about science and long term climate trends without discussing "Alinsky" and citing a single year -1998.
DeleteSmithson exhibits all the characteristics of classic science denialism.
1. Conspiracy theories
When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion proves something is true, the denialist won't admit scientists have independently studied the evidence to reach the same conclusion. Instead, they claim scientists are engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy.
2. Fake experts
These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are unqualified and inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This tactic is often complemented by denigration of established experts, seeking to discredit their work. Many of the same tobacco industry experts are paid climate science deniers - F. Seitz, F. Singer to name a few.
3. Cherry picking
This involves selectively drawing on isolated papers and minutia that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research. Like isolating a single year or decade and ignoring a much larger trend.
4. Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
Logical fallacies include the use of straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented, making it easier to refute.
Science is not like creationism that requires "belief". You are either aware of the facts for why it is true, or you are not. It's that simple. Any science denier with an agenda, no matter what the issue can cherry pick short sighted manipulated information like Smithson does from political hacks like "Goddard" (who hides behind an alias). Today, the science is clear. Of course you'll see Smithson citing 40 yr old reports of "global cooling" to show why "science isn't to be trusted". In his mind, this is "proof."
For the 37th consecutive year, global temperatures were higher than average.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201301-201312.png
1. "overwhelming evidence" coming from people who make their living off research that funded by a government that does not allow descent. There was overwhelming evidence for the mini iceage, back, in the '70's. There was overwhelming evidence for the hunger bomb and the death of the human race in the 80's. Let's not forget acid rain, and the health dangers of caffine . . . none of which proved to be true. We had overwhelming evidence that Katrina was the beginning of decades of climate unrest. Al Gore and his scientific community had overwhelming evidence that by 2015, NY would be under 20 ft of water. I will go out on a limb and predict, Ain't going to happen."
Delete2. Paid science deniers? Gee, looks like all of your authorities are paid by Cnetral Plannning and the Green Energy lobby.
3. Cherry picking includes the chart put out by the Feds, a summary of their sensory data? It is the Feds chart, moron. Is it cherry picking to point out that temp increases are .3 degrees C, since the 1970, and most of that heat increase has been at night, increasing the growing season.
Because of my comments on #1,2, and 3, nothing really needs to be said about #4.
4.
Looks like Smithson has proved the point... to uphold his political ideology, he would rather believe an elaborate conspiracy theory that the vast majority of climate scientists from all over the world, the US Military, and various world governments are deliberately lying about science research and first hand observations.... all part of a political power scheme to disenfranchise certain populations.
DeleteHe constructs a 40 year old "strawman" of evidence from some scientist back before the computer age that predicted global cooling.... based on this, "science" by it's very nature is flawed and not to be trusted.
What a kook! Could we expect anything else from a creationist science denier?
Thanks again for proving my point.
The reader knows my case includes events and claims of this past decade. They also know that the time period makes no diff whatsoever. My point was that all my examples were "scientific fact" back in the day, and the same science that gives us transgendered pretenders and doomsday scenarios for NY City and the Gulf, is being paid handsomely to push global warming.
DeleteThe fact remains that warming trends are regional, not global, cyclical (temp highs in the 1930' then cooling, followed by increase temps in the 1990' and now, another cooling trend. Also, most temp increases are recorded at night, increasing the growing season. This is why regional/daily temp records are seldom broken. Niagara Falls froze solid, this past winter, for the first time in a 100 years, yet no warming model predicted this occurrence or any of the specific similar events, each and every year.
For the 37th consecutive year, global temperatures were higher than average.
Deletehttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201301-201312.png
You have your paid scientific facts and I have my RSS charted facts here: http://jds-midknightreview.blogspot.com/2014/06/more-proof-of-utter-hoax-that-is.html - showing the decreases in temp increases, information that comes from government and climate satellites (how more objective can you get ??!!!). And my side of the debate is winning the hearts and minds of the people. Why? Well, for one thing, when you predict that all hell is going to break regarding global warming generated disasters, beginning with Katrina in 2005, and next to nothing happenings for the next 8 years and counting, or when the Central Plains are in the middle of a 4 year cooling cycles including 2 of the coldest winters on record, or when Niagara Falls FROZE SOLID this year or when you tell folks that NY City is going to be under 20 foot of water by 2015, or when your scientists are caught padding evidence on the 97% (Forbes article here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/) or when climate scientists are caught lying about climate data because of cooling issues they don't know how to interpret (scandal broke in Nov of 2009, included more than a 1000 emails and showed the climate community lying and PLOTTING to lie over the course of 13 freaking years) - maybe this and a boat load of other crap, is why you are loosing the debate.
Delete