Hottest Year Ever????

[palerider]

First, science is wrong about the physics of heavier than air flight, and now scientists are "religious leaders."

You are just full of straw men and red herrings aren't you. Clearly your position is one of faith...not hard analytical examination of all of the facts. If it is one of faith and belief, what else would you call it?

Answer the question...what sort of "new data" would require sea level records be altered back to 1870?

Being, like yourself, a non scientist, I'm not sure what led to the revision of past sea levels. You seem to think it's a part of the great conspiracy between every modern nation and every scientific organization to delude us into thinking that global warming is really happening.

Of course you aren't...and the people who altered the record aren't saying why, or giving any clue as to the process or the information that lead to the changes...they simply changed the record to give the appearance of rapidly increasing sea level to lend credence to the narrative. In the real world, if it isn't replicable...it isn't science and we all know that the steps taken to give the appearance of rapid sea level rise are not replicable.

I suppose when the Maldives discover that sea levels really aren't rising after all, then the great conspiracy hoax will be revealed for what it is:

You are laughable...you and everyone else who believes. Have you taken a look at the construction going on in the Maldives lately?...airport after airport being constructed...resort hotels on the beaches growing up faster than crabgrass....That money comes from investors who didn't get to be that rich by being dupes....you don't invest that sort of money into property that is going to sink into the ocean.

Tell me...what was the elevation of the Maldives 50 years ago?...it has always been the lowest country in the world with an average elevation of about 2.4 meters above sea level....that was its elevation back in 300BC and that is its elevation today. That nation is using the sea level scare as a tool to gain money from richer nations...it is not sinking....and you are a dupe for believing that it is based on tampered data.

 

[PLC1]

You are just full of straw men and red herrings aren't you. Clearly your position is one of faith...not hard analytical examination of all of the facts. If it is one of faith and belief, what else would you call it?

Answer the question...what sort of "new data" would require sea level records be altered back to 1870?



Of course you aren't...and the people who altered the record aren't saying why, or giving any clue as to the process or the information that lead to the changes...they simply changed the record to give the appearance of rapidly increasing sea level to lend credence to the narrative. In the real world, if it isn't replicable...it isn't science and we all know that the steps taken to give the appearance of rapid sea level rise are not replicable.



You are laughable...you and everyone else who believes. Have you taken a look at the construction going on in the Maldives lately?...airport after airport being constructed...resort hotels on the beaches growing up faster than crabgrass....That money comes from investors who didn't get to be that rich by being dupes....you don't invest that sort of money into property that is going to sink into the ocean.

Tell me...what was the elevation of the Maldives 50 years ago?...it has always been the lowest country in the world with an average elevation of about 2.4 meters above sea level....that was its elevation back in 300BC and that is its elevation today. That nation is using the sea level scare as a tool to gain money from richer nations...it is not sinking....and you are a dupe for believing that it is based on tampered data.

Of course the islands aren't sinking.

The sea is rising.
I hadn't heard about all of the construction going on there. If investors are actually building infrastructure on the Maldives, then the obvious conclusion is that it is possible to counter rising sea levels. There is a discussion of the problem here:

As one non scientist to another, I can only speculate on what data might have led to a revision of sea levels. As a non scientist, you may not be aware that sea levels are not constant throughout the world, for one thing. We non scientists do read about such things from time to time, however. Since the sea level on one coast is different from that on another coast, the logical conclusion is that the different data were from different places.

But, the bottom line to all of this is that it doesn't matter what you choose to believe, or what hard science tells us is true. Science does not care . It doesn't care about your global conspiracy theory, nor about your religious fervor in supporting it. If the data leads us to believe that the average temperature of the
Earth is increasing, then that's what science believes. As for me, it really doesn't matter what I believe, nor does it matter what the global conspiracy theorists believe.

 

[palerider]

Of course the islands aren't sinking.

The sea is rising.

Sea level isn't rising any faster now than it has at any time during the past couple of hundred years and in fact the rate is slower than it was during the early part of the 20th century.

I hadn't heard about all of the construction going on there. If investors are actually building infrastructure on the Maldives, then the obvious conclusion is that it is possible to counter rising sea levels.

So the fact that the highest elevation in the maldives hasn't changed since at least 300BC is irrelevant huh? Laughable.

As one non scientist to another, I can only speculate on what data might have led to a revision of sea levels.

So you believe that some modern data could rationally result in altering sea levels back to 1870...and you simply accept the alterations without any explanation whatsoever? You really are a dupe.

As a non scientist, you may not be aware that sea levels are not constant throughout the world, for one thing.

Actually I am...and what, in that fact might justify altering sea level records back to 1870...and do you not think some actual explanation might be in order and making the reasons and the calculations public for the scrutiny of anyone who cares to examine them?

We non scientists do read about such things from time to time, however. Since the sea level on one coast is different from that on another coast, the logical conclusion is that the different data were from different places.

The changes were global...not local.

It doesn't care about your global conspiracy theory, nor about your religious fervor in supporting it.

Sorry, but your position is far closer to religious in nature than mine...I require evidence...I require to see the reasons for which data is altered...I understand that when it is altered and neither the reason nor the method is made public...I am not seeing science. You believe...I expect to see empirical evidence...You are the believer, not me..

And the claim of conspiracy theory is just another straw man on your part....do you believe there was a worldwide conspiracy against salt...claiming that it raised blood pressure....or was it just poor science?....Do you believe there was a worldwide conspiracy claiming that stress caused stomach ulcers...or just bad science. And all of the other instances where the consensus turned out to be demonstrably wrong...was it conspiracy in every case...or just bad science.

And there is no doubt whatsoever that climate science is guilty of bad science.

If the data leads us to believe that the average temperature of the
Earth is increasing, then that's what science believes.

The actual data tell us that the temperature of the earth has increased half a degree in the past 150 years with over half of that increase happening before 1920...The existing temperature graphs tell us that the surface record gets changed multiple times per year...the actual data tell us that the surface record as kept by NOAA and GISS, and CRU are diverging wildly from the satellite record...the actual data tell us that CRN...a triple redundant temperature network so meticulously placed that no adjustments of its data are required...is showing a 10 year decline in temperature for the US while NOAA and GISS and their adjustments show that the temperature continues to rise.

There is no excuse for being so stupid that you can not recognize bad science....or simply accepting what you are told without question.

And of course it doesn't matter to you what anyone else believes....that is what all religious zealots say to themselves regarding their faith.

 

[PLC1]

Sea level isn't rising any faster now than it has at any time during the past couple of hundred years and in fact the rate is slower than it was during the early part of the 20th century.



So the fact that the highest elevation in the maldives hasn't changed since at least 300BC is irrelevant huh? Laughable.



So you believe that some modern data could rationally result in altering sea levels back to 1870...and you simply accept the alterations without any explanation whatsoever? You really are a dupe.



Actually I am...and what, in that fact might justify altering sea level records back to 1870...and do you not think some actual explanation might be in order and making the reasons and the calculations public for the scrutiny of anyone who cares to examine them?



The changes were global...not local.



Sorry, but your position is far closer to religious in nature than mine...I require evidence...I require to see the reasons for which data is altered...I understand that when it is altered and neither the reason nor the method is made public...I am not seeing science. You believe...I expect to see empirical evidence...You are the believer, not me..

And the claim of conspiracy theory is just another straw man on your part....do you believe there was a worldwide conspiracy against salt...claiming that it raised blood pressure....or was it just poor science?....Do you believe there was a worldwide conspiracy claiming that stress caused stomach ulcers...or just bad science. And all of the other instances where the consensus turned out to be demonstrably wrong...was it conspiracy in every case...or just bad science.

And there is no doubt whatsoever that climate science is guilty of bad science.



The actual data tell us that the temperature of the earth has increased half a degree in the past 150 years with over half of that increase happening before 1920...The existing temperature graphs tell us that the surface record gets changed multiple times per year...the actual data tell us that the surface record as kept by NOAA and GISS, and CRU are diverging wildly from the satellite record...the actual data tell us that CRN...a triple redundant temperature network so meticulously placed that no adjustments of its data are required...is showing a 10 year decline in temperature for the US while NOAA and GISS and their adjustments show that the temperature continues to rise.

There is no excuse for being so stupid that you can not recognize bad science....or simply accepting what you are told without question.

And of course it doesn't matter to you what anyone else believes....that is what all religious zealots say to themselves regarding their faith.

Your entire premise rests on the idea that the scientific organizations are telling government what it wants to hear in order to keep the research dollars flowing. That is a world wide conspiracy theory.

You're seeking out of data you say has been falsified is motivated by the premise that the above conspiracy is real.

You and I aren't scientists, let alone organizations of scientists. Attempting to re do the research done over decades by hundreds of people who have dedicated their lives to climate science is a fools' errand.

So, if you want to believe that science is out to "dupe" us by claiming that the climate is changing, go ahead. I'm not going to review all of their work to try to prove them wrong.

 

[palerider]

Your entire premise rests on the idea that the scientific organizations are telling government what it wants to hear in order to keep the research dollars flowing. That is a world wide conspiracy theory.

So you believe the science on stomach ulcers was a conspiracy?....there was certainly money there from pharma for stress reducing drugs....Do you believe there was a conspiracy regarding salt?....plenty of money there for blood pressure medications......How about cholesterol?....money there as well. You are either saying that worldwide conspiracy is the norm in science...or that science readily says what whoever has the money wants them to say....Which are you suggesting because in most cases where the consensus has been wrong...research money has been lost by those who held the consensus view.

You're seeking out of data you say has been falsified is motivated by the premise that the above conspiracy is real.

One doesn't have to do much seeking to find falsified data in the case of climate science...there are a few actors who falsify data and that bad data is then used as reference for there papers...the phenomena is known as an error cascade...not a conspiracy. You suggesting that I am claiming conspiracy is just another red herring on your part.

You and I aren't scientists, let alone organizations of scientists. Attempting to re do the research done over decades by hundreds of people who have dedicated their lives to climate science is a fools' errand.

I am bright enough and well educated enough to look at data, however...and the lack of data....and the alteration of data and know bad science when I see it. Sorry you aren't... you are left with a religious like belief while my position is based on observed empirical data.

So, if you want to believe that science is out to "dupe" us by claiming that the climate is changing, go ahead. I'm not going to review all of their work to try to prove them wrong.

It isn't a belief on my part...the evidence is there....hell look at the claimed climate sensitivity to CO2...it started at 6 to 8 degrees for a doubling of CO2...now it is down to 1.5 degrees or less and still falling....and yet, warmers are still warning of impending disaster....why? Money and political power of course because the data don't support the claims.

 

[PLC1]

So you believe the science on stomach ulcers was a conspiracy?....there was certainly money there from pharma for stress reducing drugs....Do you believe there was a conspiracy regarding salt?....plenty of money there for blood pressure medications......How about cholesterol?....money there as well. You are either saying that worldwide conspiracy is the norm in science...or that science readily says what whoever has the money wants them to say....Which are you suggesting because in most cases where the consensus has been wrong...research money has been lost by those who held the consensus view.



One doesn't have to do much seeking to find falsified data in the case of climate science...there are a few actors who falsify data and that bad data is then used as reference for there papers...the phenomena is known as an error cascade...not a conspiracy. You suggesting that I am claiming conspiracy is just another red herring on your part.



I am bright enough and well educated enough to look at data, however...and the lack of data....and the alteration of data and know bad science when I see it. Sorry you aren't... you are left with a religious like belief while my position is based on observed empirical data.



It isn't a belief on my part...the evidence is there....hell look at the claimed climate sensitivity to CO2...it started at 6 to 8 degrees for a doubling of CO2...now it is down to 1.5 degrees or less and still falling....and yet, warmers are still warning of impending disaster....why? Money and political power of course because the data don't support the claims.

and with that, we've once again said about all there is to say about this subject. Let's wait a few years and see if the second decade of the 21st. century outdoes the first as the warmest decade on record.

And, then we still won't know, as the data on the temperature of the globe will have come from science, and therefore be suspect.

 

[fedor50]

It isn't a belief on my part...the evidence is there....hell look at the claimed climate sensitivity to CO2...it started at 6 to 8 degrees for a doubling of CO2...now it is down to 1.5 degrees or less and still falling....and yet, warmers are still warning of impending disaster....why? Money and political power of course because the data don't support the claims.

Hey Pale Rider, are you ready to rationally defend scientific claims on why you believe a zygote is an organism? Or have you decided to simply tuck tail and run away? https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/is-a-human-zygote-an-organism.18297/page-7#post-233107

I have just responded and written 2 rebuttals that shatters your scientific myths to pieces and exposes you as not being able to rationally defend your position https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/is-a-human-zygote-an-organism.18297/page-7#post-233107

Its time for us to settle this debate once and for all and find out which one of us can intelligently support our claims and which one of us cannot https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/is-a-human-zygote-an-organism.18297/page-7#post-233107

 

[palerider]

and with that, we've once again said about all there is to say about this subject. Let's wait a few years and see if the second decade of the 21st. century outdoes the first as the warmest decade on record.

And, then we still won't know, as the data on the temperature of the globe will have come from science, and therefore be suspect.

How would you know considering the amount of adjustment that is being done to the record. Again, you simply take on faith that the numbers given to you are accurate without checking other available records....do you have any idea how far the NOAA/NASA/GISS records are diverging from HADCRUT and the satellite record? Most of the claimed warming is now an artifact of data massaging rather than actual data...there is no warming trend in the raw data which matches the satellite record very closely...

I get it, you want to be left alone in your faith...you don't want to question it. Politically, it is comfortable for you and you can't really take much self examination. You believe that only scientists can look at data and make sense of it. You believe that because perhaps you can make no sense of it yourself...and you assume that because you have no background in science that no one else does. While I am not a climate scientists, I do have a science background....I am a DMD/DDS...I practice Orthodontics and have taken enough science classes in college to look at a straight forward data record such as surface temperatures and make sense of it whether you can or not.

In a few years the claimed climate sensitivity to CO2 will have gone down another half a degree or so and at that point it will have fallen from 8 degrees to about 3/4 of one degree and you will still have your faith that humans are precipitating a global catastrophe powered by fossil fuels because none of your high priests have told you that you can stop believing that CO2 is causing warming.

 

[PLC1]

How would you know considering the amount of adjustment that is being done to the record. Again, you simply take on faith that the numbers given to you are accurate without checking other available records....do you have any idea how far the NOAA/NASA/GISS records are diverging from HADCRUT and the satellite record? Most of the claimed warming is now an artifact of data massaging rather than actual data...there is no warming trend in the raw data which matches the satellite record very closely...

I get it, you want to be left alone in your faith...you don't want to question it. Politically, it is comfortable for you and you can't really take much self examination. You believe that only scientists can look at data and make sense of it. You believe that because perhaps you can make no sense of it yourself...and you assume that because you have no background in science that no one else does. While I am not a climate scientists, I do have a science background....I am a DMD/DDS...I practice Orthodontics and have taken enough science classes in college to look at a straight forward data record such as surface temperatures and make sense of it whether you can or not.

In a few years the claimed climate sensitivity to CO2 will have gone down another half a degree or so and at that point it will have fallen from 8 degrees to about 3/4 of one degree and you will still have your faith that humans are precipitating a global catastrophe powered by fossil fuels because none of your high priests have told you that you can stop believing that CO2 is causing warming.

So, now we're back to whether CO2 is causing warming. I thought the argument was that there was no warming at all. Warmest year on record???

 

[palerider]

So, now we're back to whether CO2 is causing warming. I thought the argument was that there was no warming at all. Warmest year on record???

Geez guy....that's the problem with not reading for comprehension...you read words and then completely misrepresent what they say and then argue against that....sure, there was some warming from the late 80's to the late 90's...a small fraction of a degree...no warming since 1998 in spite of CO2 continuing to increase...

There has been a long term warming trend beginning with the end of the little ice age...the whole problem is that climate science is claiming that it is the result of manmade CO2...there isn't a whit of evidence that man is causing any change at all in the global climate...and NOAA, NASA, and GISS continue to alter the temperature record to make it appear that it is still warming when no such thing is happening.

Try reading and actually forming an argument against what the other person says rather than what you wanted them to say or some warped misrepresentation of what they actually said.

 

[PLC1]

Geez guy....that's the problem with not reading for comprehension...you read words and then completely misrepresent what they say and then argue against that....sure, there was some warming from the late 80's to the late 90's...a small fraction of a degree...no warming since 1998 in spite of CO2 continuing to increase...

There has been a long term warming trend beginning with the end of the little ice age...the whole problem is that climate science is claiming that it is the result of manmade CO2...there isn't a whit of evidence that man is causing any change at all in the global climate...and NOAA, NASA, and GISS continue to alter the temperature record to make it appear that it is still warming when no such thing is happening.

Try reading and actually forming an argument against what the other person says rather than what you wanted them to say or some warped misrepresentation of what they actually said.

What you said:

in a few years the claimed climate sensitivity to CO2 will have gone down another half a degree or so and at that point it will have fallen from 8 degrees to about 3/4 of one degree and you will still have your faith that humans are precipitating a global catastrophe powered by fossil fuels because none of your high priests have told you that you can stop believing that CO2 is causing warming.

Anyway, personal insults aside, I'm beginning to find this debate tedious at best. Go ahead, believe the hogwash that is being spread around t he internet. If you want to believe that the scientific organizations are falsifying data, then so be it. Of course, the reason they would do this is, what again? Could it be a conspiracy between government and science? Or do you have another theory?

 

[palerider]

What you said:

So how did you get the idea that I denied any warming from that? I'll tell you...you just made it up. Of course the earth warms...and the earth cools...Humans are not causing it and there isn't the first piece of empirical evidence that they are.

Anyway, personal insults aside, I'm beginning to find this debate tedious at best.

Of course it's tedious, and its your fault. The best you can do is clap your hands over your ears and shout LA LA LA at the top of your lungs so that you don't have to acknowledge that climate science is, in fact, falsifying data...and that falsified data is diverging further and further every day from observations.

Go ahead, believe the hogwash that is being spread around t he internet.

By your own admission, you aren't qualified to determine what is and isn't hogwash.. Not so with me. I am educated far beyond the high school level and can recognize when altered data does not mesh with observation and I am well qualified to know what that means.

If you want to believe that the scientific organizations are falsifying data, then so be it.

Scientific organizations don't collect data or falsify it...individuals do that...you want to tell me that they don't?

Of course, the reason they would do this is, what again?

Here is a short list of scientists who have been caught falsifying data...
H. Zhong
T. Liu
Haruko Obokata
Raphael B. Stricker
James H. Freisheim
Joachim Boldt
Jan Hendrik Schön
Richard Eastell
Malcolm Pearce
Andrew Jeremy Wakefield
Yoshitaka Fujii
Mart Bax
Jens FörsterJon Sudbø...

And I could literally go on for page after page after page of scientists who were caught falsifying data. Why did any of them do it? According to people who study people who are caught falsifying data, the reasons are specifically as diverse as the people who falsify data, but generally amount to only a few reasons...the primary reason being career pressure. Science is a career driven discipline...publish or perish isn't just a meaningless phrase that people use for fun. Scientists depend heavily on ongoing support and funding for their very survival in the field and the reputation required for that ongoing support and funding depends largely on the publication of high profile papers....papers that get media attention....

Then there is simply the ease with which data might be manipulated or falsified...when the methods or conclusions in a paper can't be experimentally replicated or duplicated, there is little to stop a scientist from fudging to get a desired result which then goes back to reason one....funding, career advancement, etc.

Falsifying data has been happening since science began and there was money to be had for results....how many kingly coins went into the pockets of "scientists" who claimed to be able to transform base metals into gold? Falsification of data is one of the most serious problems facing science today...how many papers do you suppose get retracted every year across all branches of science? Look it up some time. To suggest that people don't falsify data...or to even ask why they might do it expresses a degree of ignorance that is frankly, startling. You really must live under a rock and only peek out rarely.

Could it be a conspiracy between government and science? Or do you have another theory?

You are ignorant beyond belief...and literally mired in logical fallacy. Tell me, was it a conspiracy between government and science when John Darsee fabricated data in order to get 16 high profile papers and over 100 abstracts and book chapters published on the topic of cardiology? Was it a conspiracy between government and science when Victory Ninvov was caught fabricating data to support the claim that he had created ununoctium, and livermorium? Was it a conspiracy between government and science when Anil Potti fabricated data while employed at Duke University to get a high profile paper published on the topic of personalized genetic screening for cancer?

These are just a few. There are literally thousands upon thousands of cases just like these. Virtually every scientists involved was a member in good standing of one scientific organization or another and received government funding at some level. Are they all part of a giant conspiracy or are they individuals who do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons....greed...the want for more funding...the want to be famous and respected among their peers....the want to stand in that spotlight and bask in the envy of others in their field....the want of tenure, or promotion...or simply more security.

The fact that you sarcastically laugh off the fact that falsification of data is one of the most serious problems facing research science today is startling...the fact that you are blissfully unaware of the problem, I suppose can be laid at your abject ignorance and faith in science. Science isn't some omnipotent thing that is beyond reproach...science is people who are subject to the same wants, envies, insecurities, drives, needs, and temptations as everyone else. Science is full of bad actors and while you may characterize the discovery of falsifications on the internet as hogwash, you might want to know that the fact that all of that research is now on the internet and being examined by people who never subscribed to all of the journals in the past has resulted in more falsification of data being discovered today than at any other time in history...and the numbers of falsified papers being discovered is growing every year as a result of that "hogwash".

You are just plain ignorant. You want to believe what you believe and willfully ignore literal mountains of hard empirical evidence that contradicts what you believe. The description "useful idiot" accurately describes you, and everyone who thinks like you. You believe what you want and have no compunction in spreading the misinformation as far as you can with out question or reservation. Look the term up sometime even if you can't bear to honestly assess yourself.

 

[PLC1]

So how did you get the idea that I denied any warming from that? I'll tell you...you just made it up. Of course the earth warms...and the earth cools...Humans are not causing it and there isn't the first piece of empirical evidence that they are.




Of course it's tedious, and its your fault. The best you can do is clap your hands over your ears and shout LA LA LA at the top of your lungs so that you don't have to acknowledge that climate science is, in fact, falsifying data...and that falsified data is diverging further and further every day from observations.



By your own admission, you aren't qualified to determine what is and isn't hogwash.. Not so with me. I am educated far beyond the high school level and can recognize when altered data does not mesh with observation and I am well qualified to know what that means.



Scientific organizations don't collect data or falsify it...individuals do that...you want to tell me that they don't?



Here is a short list of scientists who have been caught falsifying data...
H. Zhong
T. Liu
Haruko Obokata
Raphael B. Stricker
James H. Freisheim
Joachim Boldt
Jan Hendrik Schön
Richard Eastell
Malcolm Pearce
Andrew Jeremy Wakefield
Yoshitaka Fujii
Mart Bax
Jens FörsterJon Sudbø...

And I could literally go on for page after page after page of scientists who were caught falsifying data. Why did any of them do it? According to people who study people who are caught falsifying data, the reasons are specifically as diverse as the people who falsify data, but generally amount to only a few reasons...the primary reason being career pressure. Science is a career driven discipline...publish or perish isn't just a meaningless phrase that people use for fun. Scientists depend heavily on ongoing support and funding for their very survival in the field and the reputation required for that ongoing support and funding depends largely on the publication of high profile papers....papers that get media attention....

Then there is simply the ease with which data might be manipulated or falsified...when the methods or conclusions in a paper can't be experimentally replicated or duplicated, there is little to stop a scientist from fudging to get a desired result which then goes back to reason one....funding, career advancement, etc.

Falsifying data has been happening since science began and there was money to be had for results....how many kingly coins went into the pockets of "scientists" who claimed to be able to transform base metals into gold? Falsification of data is one of the most serious problems facing science today...how many papers do you suppose get retracted every year across all branches of science? Look it up some time. To suggest that people don't falsify data...or to even ask why they might do it expresses a degree of ignorance that is frankly, startling. You really must live under a rock and only peek out rarely.



You are ignorant beyond belief...and literally mired in logical fallacy. Tell me, was it a conspiracy between government and science when John Darsee fabricated data in order to get 16 high profile papers and over 100 abstracts and book chapters published on the topic of cardiology? Was it a conspiracy between government and science when Victory Ninvov was caught fabricating data to support the claim that he had created ununoctium, and livermorium? Was it a conspiracy between government and science when Anil Potti fabricated data while employed at Duke University to get a high profile paper published on the topic of personalized genetic screening for cancer?

These are just a few. There are literally thousands upon thousands of cases just like these. Virtually every scientists involved was a member in good standing of one scientific organization or another and received government funding at some level. Are they all part of a giant conspiracy or are they individuals who do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons....greed...the want for more funding...the want to be famous and respected among their peers....the want to stand in that spotlight and bask in the envy of others in their field....the want of tenure, or promotion...or simply more security.

The fact that you sarcastically laugh off the fact that falsification of data is one of the most serious problems facing research science today is startling...the fact that you are blissfully unaware of the problem, I suppose can be laid at your abject ignorance and faith in science. Science isn't some omnipotent thing that is beyond reproach...science is people who are subject to the same wants, envies, insecurities, drives, needs, and temptations as everyone else. Science is full of bad actors and while you may characterize the discovery of falsifications on the internet as hogwash, you might want to know that the fact that all of that research is now on the internet and being examined by people who never subscribed to all of the journals in the past has resulted in more falsification of data being discovered today than at any other time in history...and the numbers of falsified papers being discovered is growing every year as a result of that "hogwash".

You are just plain ignorant. You want to believe what you believe and willfully ignore literal mountains of hard empirical evidence that contradicts what you believe. The description "useful idiot" accurately describes you, and everyone who thinks like you. You believe what you want and have no compunction in spreading the misinformation as far as you can with out question or reservation. Look the term up sometime even if you can't bear to honestly assess yourself.

Your claim is more than just an individual scientist falsifying data for his/her own purposes. Your argument rests on the premise that every scientific organization in the world is either falsifying data, or is relying on false data supplied by individuals. That's a huge claim, indicting not just a particular scientist, not just NOAA and NASA of the USA, but also every scientific organization that deals in climate science world wide.

Supporting such a claim requires a lot more than simply digging up a bit of data showing that past sea levels were once reported to have been one thing, and are now reported to be something else, that particularly when sea levels vary from one point on the globe to another.

Now, I could go on and describe your intellectual capacity and impugn your character, but that would be childish and silly, so I won't.

 

[palerider]

Your claim is more than just an individual scientist falsifying data for his/her own purposes. Your argument rests on the premise that every scientific organization in the world is either falsifying data, or is relying on false data supplied by individuals.

Where do you think scientific organizations get their data? There is no American Physical Society lab...all their data comes from individuals...same for all scientific organizations.

That's a huge claim, indicting not just a particular scientist, not just NOAA and NASA of the USA, but also every scientific organization that deals in climate science world wide.

Since you can't name a single scientific organization that has not had at least one of its members caught falsifying data, they are already indicted. People cheat. Get used to it.

Supporting such a claim requires a lot more than simply digging up a bit of data showing that past sea levels were once reported to have been one thing, and are now reported to be something else, that particularly when sea levels vary from one point on the globe to another.

It isn't just sea levels....it is the temperature record...hell, it is the paleontological record. Climate science has set out to alter every record that casts doubt on the claim of anthropogenic climate change.

Now, I could go on and describe your intellectual capacity and impugn your character, but that would be childish and silly, so I won't.

With you, it is a cinch. You make it so easy. All believers make it easy.

 

[PLC1]

Where do you think scientific organizations get their data? There is no American Physical Society lab...all their data comes from individuals...same for all scientific organizations.



Since you can't name a single scientific organization that has not had at least one of its members caught falsifying data, they are already indicted. People cheat. Get used to it.



It isn't just sea levels....it is the temperature record...hell, it is the paleontological record. Climate science has set out to alter every record that casts doubt on the claim of anthropogenic climate change.



With you, it is a cinch. You make it so easy. All believers make it easy.

Yes, for me it would be a cinch, but I'm more mature than that.

Now, let's see... it's back to falsified data not just by some individuals, but by climate science as a whole. And the purpose of falsifying data would be what again?