3 ms·

God no. That would be a disaster. Back here in the real world, not the modelled world, we have to ask is the temperature even rising at all? This shouldn't eve

God no. That would be a disaster. Back here in the real world, not the modelled world, we have to ask is the temperature even rising at all? This shouldn't even be a legitimate question to ask but it turns out it is. In recent years temperature "rises" have sometimes turned out to be the result of data modification and not really existing. See how NOAA has announced that July 2021 broke the previous temperature record set in 2016, and how they also announced that July 2019 was a record breaking year. This happens because climatologists are constantly rewriting the historical record to create new warming trends where none were previously seen. They admit to this in obscure papers but reason, correctly, that the media/political set will not call them on it, so they can get away with making their predictions about the future come true by simply altering the past. In many cases temperature graphs for massive regions that were flat in the past have become sloped in the present. Consider this front page New York Times article from 1989: https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?src=pm https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fai... "US data since 1895 fail to show warming trend" Look at the graph in the lower left hand corner for long term US temperatures and notice that it's flat. The US should certainly have warmed between 1895 and 1989 given GHG emissions in this time frame but it didn't. Now go look up a temperature history of the USA from modern sources like the NOAA website. Observe that it's sloped upwards for the same time frame. The past has been changed. In the first part of the century there was a notorious so-called pause in global warming. Temperatures were once again not going up. Scientists fixed this by rewriting the past once again: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700 If there was actually runaway global warming, they would not need to do this sort of thing. But they do, because otherwise, warming does not appear in the data. Given that the temperature record is not trustworthy by climatologists own admission it would be incredibly destructive and unwise to do geo-engineering on the basis of such flimsy data. It could easily make things far worse. In fact we just finished up with a global crisis; one that appears to have started in a lab that was tampering with viruses in an attempt to pre-solve a future disease crisis that existed primarily in the heads of the scientists researching it. The scale of it was then exaggerated by modellers who didn't understand what they were modelling and who have utterly refused to accept evidence that their suggested interventions had no effect. Academia is just not reliable enough to take drastic action on the basis of their predictions and people who keep denying this are, in my view, the real deniers.

feoren 5y ago
Yeah: why would we trust people who go back, verify, and correct their findings later? We should only trust people who never ever change their mind or attempt to correct their previous interpretations of data! Thanks, random internet stranger, for showing that millions of scientists and dozens of government organizations are completely incompetent and/or malicious liars! Either that or you're spreading misinformation and cherry-picking a few small examples to support a pre-determined conclusion.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Please think about this carefully before making such replies. You cannot "go back" in time and "verify" a weather station reading. It was what it was on a specific day at a specific place, and if the log books say it was X then it was X. You can't say, gee, I wonder what the temperature was in New York on April 1st 1940 if I use my super-duper new thermometer, because time travel is impossible. "We should only trust people who never ever change their mind or attempt to correct their previous interpretations of data" Look, I realize what I'm showing you is hard to accept. It was for me too. I did a lot of digging before coming to the conclusion that I couldn't refute what was happening. Nonetheless, please recognize that you're in denial here. These people are not changing their interpretations of the data. They are changing the data itself and I believe I made that extremely clear. It's very hard to get the raw, pre-editing historical datasets. Sometimes it's possible, sometimes it's not. It really depends on the temperature series, the organization that produces it, the time frame in question etc. That's why I'm forced to cite newspaper archives above, because they are one of the places where history is recorded that scientists can't easily rewrite. "Thanks, random internet stranger, for showing that millions of scientists and dozens of government organizations are completely incompetent and/or malicious liars!" Unfortunately facts aren't decided by how many people say them or who they work for. Facts are what they are and one person pointing out one fact, can - in fact - show that millions of scientists and dozens of government organizations are doing something highly unusual. At any rate, there aren't millions of climatologists, lol. It's a tiny field. Even fewer of them produce temperature data sets. Probably fewer than 100 people do that work globally (I'm not counting the people who actually read the thermometers here because they aren't publishing combined temperature series). With respect to being incompetent and malicious liars, I'm afraid they are something far worse - highly competent and badly incentivized liars. If there was no global warming them climatology would be dusty academic backwater that none of us would ever think about. They wouldn't be the center of a massive cultural industry that venerates them, instead their status and funding would be somewhere near the sort of people who categorize rare species of butterflies.

feoren 5y ago

Yeah: why would we trust people who go back, verify, and correct their findings later? We should only trust people who never ever change their mind or attempt to correct their previous interpretations of data! Thanks, random internet stranger, for showing that millions of scientists and dozens of government organizations are completely incompetent and/or malicious liars! Either that or you're spreading misinformation and cherry-picking a few small examples to support a pre-determined conclusion.

native_samples 5y ago
Please think about this carefully before making such replies. You cannot "go back" in time and "verify" a weather station reading. It was what it was on a specific day at a specific place, and if the log books say it was X then it was X. You can't say, gee, I wonder what the temperature was in New York on April 1st 1940 if I use my super-duper new thermometer, because time travel is impossible. "We should only trust people who never ever change their mind or attempt to correct their previous interpretations of data" Look, I realize what I'm showing you is hard to accept. It was for me too. I did a lot of digging before coming to the conclusion that I couldn't refute what was happening. Nonetheless, please recognize that you're in denial here. These people are not changing their interpretations of the data. They are changing the data itself and I believe I made that extremely clear. It's very hard to get the raw, pre-editing historical datasets. Sometimes it's possible, sometimes it's not. It really depends on the temperature series, the organization that produces it, the time frame in question etc. That's why I'm forced to cite newspaper archives above, because they are one of the places where history is recorded that scientists can't easily rewrite. "Thanks, random internet stranger, for showing that millions of scientists and dozens of government organizations are completely incompetent and/or malicious liars!" Unfortunately facts aren't decided by how many people say them or who they work for. Facts are what they are and one person pointing out one fact, can - in fact - show that millions of scientists and dozens of government organizations are doing something highly unusual. At any rate, there aren't millions of climatologists, lol. It's a tiny field. Even fewer of them produce temperature data sets. Probably fewer than 100 people do that work globally (I'm not counting the people who actually read the thermometers here because they aren't publishing combined temperature series). With respect to being incompetent and malicious liars, I'm afraid they are something far worse - highly competent and badly incentivized liars. If there was no global warming them climatology would be dusty academic backwater that none of us would ever think about. They wouldn't be the center of a massive cultural industry that venerates them, instead their status and funding would be somewhere near the sort of people who categorize rare species of butterflies.