Study: Temp Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming' in Climate Data

[breadisfunny]

It's not my fault I get banned in the middle of every climate thread!

Also, you're welcome.

- - - Updated - - -



They don't. They both want to fund studies that they think will give the results they are looking for.

yes it's all everyone else's fault you get banned.

[Deleted]

I have tried to find some peer review publication where this would have been published. I found none.

So I wouldn't put much if any stock on this, nor would I waste time reading the whole thing before they actually manage to publish it somewhere.

You can literally hire someone with a PhD for a couple of thousand dollars to draw up whatever bollocks study you want. Of course, it won't stand up to peer-review, but that's obviously not the point. The point is that a website like the Daily Caller can link to a wordpress page where a bunch of folks with Dr. before their names wrote up something formal looking that squares with their world view.

Even if you manage to get published, it doesn't mean the paper is worth anything, and you have to wait on other researchers confirming the same thing before you can put any stock on it.

Meanwhile I'm going to go with NASA, NOA and British Met + hundreds of other research groups and agencies that agree that the world is in fact warming.

Next up the earth is flat and bigfoot is living in Tijuana

[breadisfunny]

I don't understand why you are derailing the thread with personal attacks. Do you not find the topic interesting? You don't have to post in the thread, if you don't like the topic.

asking you to post objectively instead of posting articles that only serve to back up your own narrative isn't a personal attack.

[Tijuana]

No, I don't know how it works, and I doubt you know either. The funding has been discussed many times before in here, and I don't recall it being ever presented to work like that.

Well, all products must have a buyer of the product. Not every study is approved. There is competition in various ways to be awarded the grants. If you think you have a cure for cancer, there are many buyers of that study. If you think you can prove cancer can't be cured, there are no buyers of that study. It's simple economics, really. They have to sell a study people want to buy, or else no study.

[Dug]

They don't. They both want to fund studies that they think will give the results they are looking for.

But oil/fossil fuels are far more profitable in the here and now so what does government have to gain by pushing studies going against that?

[breadisfunny]

Well, all products must have a buyer of the product. Not every study is approved. There is competition in various ways to be awarded the grants. If you think you have a cure for cancer, there are many buyers of that study. If you think you can prove cancer can't be cured, there are no buyers of that study. It's simple economics, really. They have to sell a study people want to buy, or else no study.

wait what? here i thought scientists just conducted a study and published the results after a peer reviewed process. so you really think scientists are hiding surveys because they aren't paid enough? am i misreading this?

[Tijuana]

i don't think you want an actual discussion i think you just want a platform to make thinly veiled conspiracy theory-esque type claims without outright saying it's some sort of conspiracy so you can dance around the forum rules of not posting conspiracy theories. simply because you don't want to believe climate change is real.

I have not called your motives in to question. Why not keep it civil, instead? I think this topic is more interesting than your attacks on people.

Do you think it's untrue that grants are needed to fund these studies? Or just that the people who award the grants are like actual saint levels of non-corrupt? I don't understand your complaint, since your whole post was just personal. Do you care to explain more of your thoughts on the actual topic?

[cubby]

I have not personally attacked you. Why not keep it civil, instead?

You're early on the victim card - usually page 3 or 4. Consistent though. Keep in mind, as usual, I didn't attack you personally.

As I already stated, I think there are two buyers of climate studies, governments, and energy companies. They have different interests going in, so the studies they fund have different conclusions coming out.

And many, many people, over many, many threads, have pointed out numerous facts showing that you are wrong.

[breadisfunny]

I have not called your motives in to question. Why not keep it civil, instead? I think this topic is more interesting than your attacks on people.

Do you think it's untrue that grants are needed to fund these studies? Or just that the people who award the grants are like actual saint levels of non-corrupt? I don't understand your complaint, since your whole post was just personal. Do you care to explain more of your thoughts on the actual topic?

of course grants are needed where do you think the money comes from? the grant is to prove or disprove a certain point. the studies are done and the results peer reviewed and then published. they publish the findings regardless of if it goes against their original point.

[Tijuana]

What's it like to be a perpetual victim? Is it hard when The Man is out to get you?

OT: Man made climate change is real, get over it. Even if it wasn't (it totally is) "let's just keep fucking up the planet bruh" isn't a good argument.

Who said it wasn't real? Why are you straw manning me before you even ask what my position is? You didn't just move the goal post, you kicked the ball before I was on the field.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean you called me "kid" the other day. Seems like a personal attack to me but its whatever just telling you what I've observed.

I would take being called a kid as a compliment. I'm old as balls. Did you have anything on topic to add?

[breadisfunny]

Who said it wasn't real? Why are you straw manning me before you even ask what my position is? You didn't just move the goal post, you kicked the ball before I was on the field.

- - - Updated - - -



I would take being called a kid as a compliment. I'm old as balls. Did you have anything on topic to add?

your posting the article in a "just asking questions" kind of manner...we all know what that means....your not really here to ask questions.
your here to push an agenda.

[Flarelaine]

Next up the earth is flat and bigfoot is living in Tijuana

You'll have to wait a bit for that, Hammerfest is on "vacation".

[Tijuana]

So if I understand clearly.
The government finance 97% of the scientist to prove something false
and
Oil Companies finance 3% of the scientist to prove something also false

My conclusion : The government have a lot of money to give away to the large majority of scientist who are very dishonnest and Oil companies have only few bucks to prove it. Also no scientist are financed for something other than climate change.

Also do we agree that this study just say "Well they might not have taken some short-cycle into account, so we are going to dismiss all of it, while not denying the change"

edit : They don't even contradict that the temperature is indeed going up at the rate it is. They just say they might have minored short-term cycle (which were not relevant). Am I the only one to read the article and just not the first two lines ?

I just assumed nobody would read it by now, but me. I expected them to still be questioning the source for at least a dozen pages, and then somewhere around page 50 they would read it, if ever.

- - - Updated - - -

Next up the earth is flat and bigfoot is living in Tijuana

Did you read the study? Science is right, whether you believe in it or not. Don't be a science denier.

What part of the study did you not agree with?

[Mihalik]

Even ignoring the models sucking, there is no reason to assume that the leftist "solution" of taxing the crap out of everyone for a projected few tenths of a degree effect is a benefit to society.

Also, studies show increased plant growth in Africa due to the higher CO2, which means more potential crops in Africa. Anyone who wants to reverse or prevent this is racist. Isn't that how leftists argue, anyway? Protect white privilege by keeping minority populations subjected?

That's really not how it works.

Increased greening in certain locations literally means nothing when it comes to the food supply. Couple of centigrade shifts would literally mean that current areas where the climate is suitable for agriculture could also shift thousands of kilometers. Take Southern Europe, countries like Spain, are literally the breadbaskets of much of Europe. Spain is experiencing intense desertification. There's also the risk that due to the drop in salinity levels in the North Atlantic the warm water curents that heat Northern Europe would stop flowing, causing significant temperature drops in the area. The South would be too dry for agriculture and the North too cold. Hundreds of millions of Europeans depending on the insanely productive European agriculture would be forced to import most of their food stocks from...where exactly?

The same is applicable to the continental US. What if California experiences another drought? This one lasting...2 or 3 decades? What if the same happens to Texas?

What happens when the US Midwest gets 4-5 dry winters? What if hurricanes start to regularily go as north as New York and Boston?

What happens to Southern Florida when the sealevels rise another 2 feet? Half of Miami is already practically under the sea level.

And this is just talking about rich industrialized nations that do have the resources to adapt. Move these effects to a place like Nigeria with a population of 180+ million? What happens to them when they get a decade long drought? Or India if the mix of summer heat waves and rainy seasons wipe out crops for years in a row?

The issue is that you sorely misunderstand how averages work. While a 1 centigrade average warming appears to be trivial, that actually translates to things like hurricanes, +10 centrigrade month long heatwaves, etc, that's what fucks your shit up.

[Edge-]

I just assumed nobody would read it by now, but me. I expected them to still be questioning the source for at least a dozen pages, and then somewhere around page 50 they would read it, if ever.

Engaging as honestly as ever, I see.

[Tijuana]

asking you to post objectively instead of posting articles that only serve to back up your own narrative isn't a personal attack.

Is it normal that other posters link articles they disagree with? Why are you setting a double standard for my posts?

- - - Updated - - -

Engaging as honestly as ever, I see.

I didn't say I don't want them to read it. I'm just saying they are often stubborn.

[satimy]

Yes, they are science denying scientists who are part of a grand conspiracy of taking monetary bribes from big oil interests in order to generate doubt over settled science. Stop asking questions and just believe what real scientists have told you is true.

Settled Science is an oxymoron

[Flarelaine]

That's really not how it works.

Increased greening in certain locations literally means nothing when it comes to the food supply. Couple of centigrade shifts would literally mean that current areas where the climate is suitable for agriculture could also shift thousands of kilometers. Take Southern Europe, countries like Spain, are literally the breadbaskets of much of Europe. Spain is experiencing intense desertification. There's also the risk that due to the drop in salinity levels in the North Atlantic the warm water curents that heat Northern Europe would stop flowing, causing significant temperature drops in the area. The South would be too dry for agriculture and the North too cold. Hundreds of millions of Europeans depending on the insanely productive European agriculture would be forced to import most of their food stocks from...where exactly?

The same is applicable to the continental US. What if California experiences another drought? This one lasting...2 or 3 decades? What if the same happens to Texas?

What happens when the US Midwest gets 4-5 dry winters? What if hurricanes start to regularily go as north as New York and Boston?

What happens to Southern Florida when the sealevels rise another 2 feet? Half of Miami is already practically under the sea level.

And this is just talking about rich industrialized nations that do have the resources to adapt. Move these effects to a place like Nigeria with a population of 180+ million? What happens to them when they get a decade long drought? Or India if the mix of summer heat waves and rainy seasons wipe out crops for years in a row?

The issue is that you sorely misunderstand how averages work. While a 1 centigrade average warming appears to be trivial, that actually translates to things like hurricanes, +10 centrigrade month long heatwaves, etc, that's what fucks your shit up.

It's refreshing to see someone who understands that one extra degree is not just us feeling slightly hotter.

[Tijuana]

You realize your posting history is available to all, right? It might be a good idea to not lie when it's so easily verifiable.




Because you don't read them. You never do. If you cared and were honestly after what scientists have to say, you'd stop posting things like this. But you don't, so we just have the same entertaining cycle as always.

Why do you always point out posting history? Why are you creeping through people's old posts? That's just....weird. You can read mine all you want though. They would likely be very educational, as I am quite wise.

I read this study. Did you? What did you think of their methodology? Did you see all the PhDs? That's good right? A good study has lots of letters after names, right?

[Tijuana]

I have tried to find some peer review publication where this would have been published. I found none.

So I wouldn't put much if any stock on this, nor would I waste time reading the whole thing before they actually manage to publish it somewhere.

You can literally hire someone with a PhD for a couple of thousand dollars to draw up whatever bollocks study you want. Of course, it won't stand up to peer-review, but that's obviously not the point. The point is that a website like the Daily Caller can link to a wordpress page where a bunch of folks with Dr. before their names wrote up something formal looking that squares with their world view.

Even if you manage to get published, it doesn't mean the paper is worth anything, and you have to wait on other researchers confirming the same thing before you can put any stock on it.

Meanwhile I'm going to go with NASA, NOA and British Met + hundreds of other research groups and agencies that agree that the world is in fact warming.

Thank you for providing your honest critique of the work. Some other posters are just posting personal attacks, without reading it. What about their methods did you find lacking?

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, now I'm genuinely confused. That was funny. I mean like next-gen funny. And not making-fun-of funny, I mean intelligently funny. Did you do that on purpose?




Ok . . . for what?

I'm assuming all of my bans are unfair, obviously. I get banned for punctuation.


You're welcome for the joy I bring you, when you read my posts. That was a nice compliment, thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

But oil/fossil fuels are far more profitable in the here and now so what does government have to gain by pushing studies going against that?

Because they are Democrats, and they just believe in the general idea that the world is over populated, and that the US is the House Harkonnen of pollution. Without even questioning their motives or accuracy, it's easy to surmise that their bias has an effect, as do everyone's biases. They want climate change to be taken seriously, and they only buy studies that support that.

- - - Updated - - -

wait what? here i thought scientists just conducted a study and published the results after a peer reviewed process. so you really think scientists are hiding surveys because they aren't paid enough? am i misreading this?

The big studies need grants to fund them. Scientists are not entrepreneurs. They use outside funding, not their own.

- - - Updated - - -

You're early on the victim card - usually page 3 or 4. Consistent though. Keep in mind, as usual, I didn't attack you personally.




And many, many people, over many, many threads, have pointed out numerous facts showing that you are wrong.

I don't recall you linking those sources. If I am wrong, I would like to see them. Can you link them again?