You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Climate Change 2 - its also the submarine volcanoes
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Alberta has had three years now where nearly every month has been above average.Its not hard to be above average when you keep lowering the average, it reminds me of the goldstars for everyone system of teaching we have now days.
Once again, when you lower past years, then pad recent years, that tends to happen.Alberta has had three years now where nearly every month has been above average.
Prove they're lowering past years (and padding recent years).Once again, when you lower past years, then pad recent years, that tends to happen.
You arent serious are you?Prove they're lowering past years (and padding recent years).
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Not Alberta.You arent serious are you?
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Not Alberta.
When these firms have all already been busted multiple times cooking the books, all credibility is gone, if it was a private business they would have folded already, see Arthur Andersen/Enron.
The article, if true, says "up to 1 degree". The averages are being broken by much more than that.When these firms have all already been busted multiple times cooking the books, all credibility is gone, if it was a private business they would have folded already, see Arthur Andersen/Enron.
Just came across this article after the enron comparison, seems that other people are drawing the same conclusion.
GLOBAL WARMING: SO DISHONEST IT MAKES ENRON LOOK LIKE A PARAGON OF INTEGRITY
“Fiddling temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever,” says Christopher Booker, not pulling his punches. And I think he’s right not to do so. If – as Booker, myself, and few otherssuspect – the guardians of the world’s land-based temperature records have been adjusting the raw data in order to exaggerate “global warming” then this is indeed a crime against the scientific method unparalleled in history.
Sure you could make a case that Lysenkoism or Hitler’s war to discredit “Jewish science” were more evil but these were confined to discrete geographical regions under specific totalitarian regimes. What’s so extraordinary about the manipulations to the global land-based temperature sets is that they affect every one of us, wherever we live.
Whether you’re an elderly couple in mid-Wales who have just had 20 per cent knocked off the value of your retirement cottage by the new wind farm on the hill opposite, or you’re a tribesman in the South East Asian jungle whose virgin forest home has been trashed to make way for a palm oil plantation to grow eco-friendly biofuels, or you’re a scientist in New Zealand who has been hounded out of your job because your research doesn’t fit the “global warming” narrative, or you’re a science teacher in Ohio who is obliged, whether you like it or not, to lecture your charges on the dread perils of climate change, or you’re a Republican senatorial candidate who has been targeted as a “denier” in a green attack dog campaign financed by Tom Steyer, you’re all victims of the same global scam: a scam perpetrated by a tiny handful of individuals whose junk statistical manipulation of the global climate records have transformed routine weather patterns into the world’s biggest and most influential ever science scare story.
Here, in the letters pages of today’s Telegraph, is yet another example of what I mean. It’s a letter protesting against the devastation of the Scottish landscape by bird-slicing, bat-chomping eco-crucifixes and it’s signed by the director of the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, the president of the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, the president of the Munro Society, the chairman of National Trust for Scotland, the convener of Ramblers Scotland, and the co-ordinator of Scottish Wild Land.
It begins:
“Few dispute the necessity of reducing our energy use and pursuing renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels, in order to help address climate change…”
They feel, for understandable reasons, that they are obliged to preface their complaint with the usual obeisance to the Great Green Climate Change Emperor. But what if that Great Green Climate Change Emperor is wearing no clothes?
What then?
Just to recap, here is what we now know about the world’s land-based temperature records. The raw weather station data appears to show in many cases that the 1930s was the warmest decade in the last 100 years (not, as activists like James Hansen have insisted, the period since the late 1990s). Yet this data has now been “adjusted” – so far without any convincing explanation – in order to make the 1930s look cooler than they were and recent periods warmer. The net effect of this has been to make Twentieth century warming look much more dramatic and extreme than it may actually have been – generating concomitant panic among the scientific establishment which has been using this “adjusted” data as the basis for its narrative that we are currently experiencing a dangerous and unprecedented phenomenon sometimes known (though they keep changing the name) as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
A common defence used by alarmist “experts” to shore up this shaky theory is that lots of different scientific institutions have reached the same conclusion independently of one another.
But here’s the rub: they are not independent. They are all in cahoots because they are all pushing the same narrative, as Booker explains using the example of the “suspicious” one-way adjustments to the weather stations in Paraguay. (And also, it has subsequently been shown, in the Arctic).
GLOBAL WARMING: SO DISHONEST IT MAKES ENRON LOOK LIKE A PARAGON OF INTEGRITY
“Fiddling temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever,” says Christopher Booker, not pulling his punches. And I think he’s right not to do so. If – as Booker, myself, and few otherssuspect – the guardians of the world’s land-based temperature records have been adjusting the raw data in order to exaggerate “global warming” then this is indeed a crime against the scientific method unparalleled in history.
Sure you could make a case that Lysenkoism or Hitler’s war to discredit “Jewish science” were more evil but these were confined to discrete geographical regions under specific totalitarian regimes. What’s so extraordinary about the manipulations to the global land-based temperature sets is that they affect every one of us, wherever we live.
Whether you’re an elderly couple in mid-Wales who have just had 20 per cent knocked off the value of your retirement cottage by the new wind farm on the hill opposite, or you’re a tribesman in the South East Asian jungle whose virgin forest home has been trashed to make way for a palm oil plantation to grow eco-friendly biofuels, or you’re a scientist in New Zealand who has been hounded out of your job because your research doesn’t fit the “global warming” narrative, or you’re a science teacher in Ohio who is obliged, whether you like it or not, to lecture your charges on the dread perils of climate change, or you’re a Republican senatorial candidate who has been targeted as a “denier” in a green attack dog campaign financed by Tom Steyer, you’re all victims of the same global scam: a scam perpetrated by a tiny handful of individuals whose junk statistical manipulation of the global climate records have transformed routine weather patterns into the world’s biggest and most influential ever science scare story.
Here, in the letters pages of today’s Telegraph, is yet another example of what I mean. It’s a letter protesting against the devastation of the Scottish landscape by bird-slicing, bat-chomping eco-crucifixes and it’s signed by the director of the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, the president of the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, the president of the Munro Society, the chairman of National Trust for Scotland, the convener of Ramblers Scotland, and the co-ordinator of Scottish Wild Land.
It begins:
“Few dispute the necessity of reducing our energy use and pursuing renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels, in order to help address climate change…”
They feel, for understandable reasons, that they are obliged to preface their complaint with the usual obeisance to the Great Green Climate Change Emperor. But what if that Great Green Climate Change Emperor is wearing no clothes?
What then?
Just to recap, here is what we now know about the world’s land-based temperature records. The raw weather station data appears to show in many cases that the 1930s was the warmest decade in the last 100 years (not, as activists like James Hansen have insisted, the period since the late 1990s). Yet this data has now been “adjusted” – so far without any convincing explanation – in order to make the 1930s look cooler than they were and recent periods warmer. The net effect of this has been to make Twentieth century warming look much more dramatic and extreme than it may actually have been – generating concomitant panic among the scientific establishment which has been using this “adjusted” data as the basis for its narrative that we are currently experiencing a dangerous and unprecedented phenomenon sometimes known (though they keep changing the name) as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
A common defence used by alarmist “experts” to shore up this shaky theory is that lots of different scientific institutions have reached the same conclusion independently of one another.
But here’s the rub: they are not independent. They are all in cahoots because they are all pushing the same narrative, as Booker explains using the example of the “suspicious” one-way adjustments to the weather stations in Paraguay. (And also, it has subsequently been shown, in the Arctic).
First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
This last point is THE point.
If the temperature records on which the entire edifice of the international global warming industry is based are a busted flush then we have all been victims of a scam so vast and all-encompassing it makes Enron look like a model of modesty and integrity. It also raises the question – and I speak here, of course, metaphorically rather than literally: when are heads going to roll?
http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...makes-enron-look-like-a-paragon-of-integrity/
This last point is THE point.
If the temperature records on which the entire edifice of the international global warming industry is based are a busted flush then we have all been victims of a scam so vast and all-encompassing it makes Enron look like a model of modesty and integrity. It also raises the question – and I speak here, of course, metaphorically rather than literally: when are heads going to roll?
http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...makes-enron-look-like-a-paragon-of-integrity/
Maybe farmers are "in on it" too.
Agriculture
How Alberta’s farmers are adapting to the uncertainty around climate change
Climate change doesn’t just mean warmer weather – it means unpredictability
Jun 11, 2013
by Alexis Kienlen
Lynn Jacobson grows oilseeds, wheat, pulses (chickpeas, lentils and beans) and alfalfa on his 1,500 acres at Enchant, about 80 kilometres northeast of Lethbridge. A fourth generation farmer, a director with the newly created Alberta Wheat Commission and the president of Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, Jacobson is also exploring alfalfa seed and seed canola production. And like most farmers in the province, to do this he has to adapt to the effects of climate change.
Jacobson has little doubt it will change the way he works his fields. Already, because an increasing number of frost-free days are creating an extended growing season, he’s seen colleagues decide to grow different varieties of barley, wheat or canola. As Jacobson says, “It’s jokingly been said by some people that we’ll eventually become the grape producers of America.” But is climate change good or bad for Alberta’s farmers? And can they adapt to what appears to be a new normal?
On one hand, climate change might be good in some ways. After all, a warmer climate means longer and more growing days, which means more and better crop yields. The data bears that out to a certain degree, too. “Scientists at the University of Alberta have documented how the climate has changed over the past 100 years,” says Tom Goddard, senior policy advisor with the Environment and Stewardship division at Alberta Agriculture. “There has been a warming trend and we’ve seen more growing days in the province and slightly different moisture patterns.”
One of the ways this is measured is through the boundary for corn heat units, which measures where corn can be grown in the province. The northern boundary for these units has moved up a couple hundred kilometres since the 1910s, and it’s advanced about 50 kilometres since the 1940s. And that changing climate is allowing Alberta farmers to grow crops they couldn’t before.
More >>
Agriculture
How Alberta’s farmers are adapting to the uncertainty around climate change
Climate change doesn’t just mean warmer weather – it means unpredictability
Jun 11, 2013
by Alexis Kienlen
Lynn Jacobson grows oilseeds, wheat, pulses (chickpeas, lentils and beans) and alfalfa on his 1,500 acres at Enchant, about 80 kilometres northeast of Lethbridge. A fourth generation farmer, a director with the newly created Alberta Wheat Commission and the president of Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, Jacobson is also exploring alfalfa seed and seed canola production. And like most farmers in the province, to do this he has to adapt to the effects of climate change.
Jacobson has little doubt it will change the way he works his fields. Already, because an increasing number of frost-free days are creating an extended growing season, he’s seen colleagues decide to grow different varieties of barley, wheat or canola. As Jacobson says, “It’s jokingly been said by some people that we’ll eventually become the grape producers of America.” But is climate change good or bad for Alberta’s farmers? And can they adapt to what appears to be a new normal?
On one hand, climate change might be good in some ways. After all, a warmer climate means longer and more growing days, which means more and better crop yields. The data bears that out to a certain degree, too. “Scientists at the University of Alberta have documented how the climate has changed over the past 100 years,” says Tom Goddard, senior policy advisor with the Environment and Stewardship division at Alberta Agriculture. “There has been a warming trend and we’ve seen more growing days in the province and slightly different moisture patterns.”
One of the ways this is measured is through the boundary for corn heat units, which measures where corn can be grown in the province. The northern boundary for these units has moved up a couple hundred kilometres since the 1910s, and it’s advanced about 50 kilometres since the 1940s. And that changing climate is allowing Alberta farmers to grow crops they couldn’t before.
More >>