Global warming / climate change Semi-news
-
Some people have been looking at the raw data NASA had collected about temperatures and found similar shenanigans to what happened in Copenhagen a few years back, where higher temperatures in the past and lower temperatures more towards the present were dumped.
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.
I remember back around 2003-2008 when people going on about global warming were saying the average temperature on the Earth would be going up by at least 10 degrees by now, and thinking it was more than a little odd that their projections were that wildly off. So it's interesting seeing how many places edit their data.
Like even the papers done about who believes in global warming seem to get edited. Like there's the 97% statistic trotted out by people like Obama even, of the percentage of scientists that supposedly believe in global warming.
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”
A major thing I've found weird is how many 'scientists' writing about global warming turn out to be things like professors of women's studies. And those folks that deal with social sciences often do not seem that concerned about using evidence to support their points (except for psychologists that at least use empirical analysis).
-
You make some very valid points, especially about the 97% claim.
Now let's wait to see if we get slaughtered for even questioning the view of the believers
