Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: EPA's greenhouse gases 'Endangerment Finding' FAKE NEWS!

  1. #1

    EPA's greenhouse gases 'Endangerment Finding' FAKE NEWS!

    A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/ex...-climate-data/

    Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

    Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

    In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.

    “Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
    Imagine how much better America would be if you would simply don a pair a pants before sitting down at your Playskool My First 'Puter.


    LibertyBeacon

  2. #2
    Visualize whirled peas Merlin99's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California, MD
    Posts
    12,895
    So I heard that Pruitt's come up with the idea of having red team blue team reviews of climate science. Let the pro, con science teams debate their pet theories and see if they can convince people that they are right. The pro climate change side has decided that they don't want to participate because they might lose and give the climate denier side an equal footing. I think this is an excellent idea myself, I could be easily convinced by the idea of anthropological climate change except for the fact that every few months they're found to be fudging data to fit their argument. Here they're calling them biases, in the past they've called them tricks or irrelevant models. This is my biggest problem with the climate change side, they want us to take them at their word but they don't want to actually debate the people who can ask the right questions.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/c...-red-team.html
    ‎"I've learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is a piece of cake"

Members who have read this thread: 22

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |