Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

Status
Not open for further replies.

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,506
607
137
Allen, Texas
Blah, blah, blah..............no, NOAA never revises the data. They do. They even announce when they do. And it is almost always a downgrading of temperature. Just because it gets buried in the news, and you may have missed it, does not mean it never happened.

No, it is never a huge change; just a few tenths. Which takes the "hottest year ever" down to just another year.

What they do not explain is why it takes them a year or so, to pour over all the data, to come up with the revised data. Probably because when it takes so long no one pays attention.
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,506
607
137
Allen, Texas
O'Dumbo wants us all to have a discussion, about gun control, at the Thanksgiving Day meal.

Yes, it is important to have full control of your gun, so that you hit what you are aiming at, and not something else.

Done.

So, let's talk about global warming...........or is it "the coming Ice Age"...........or, ah, I guess it is all just plain ol' climate change now. (You would think after 40+ years of scare tactics, they would get their story straight. But, I digress.)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/26/talk-global-warming-crazy-isis-relatives-thanksgiving-dinner/

Almost sounds like something one would read on that glorious site, of the peoples glorious movement against the oppressors of the people, The Peoples Cube.

"Et tu, kamerad?"
 

Bama4Ever831

All-American
Sep 13, 2005
2,209
0
45
35
Tuscaloosa, AL
Blah, blah, blah..............no, NOAA never revises the data. They do. They even announce when they do. And it is almost always a downgrading of temperature. Just because it gets buried in the news, and you may have missed it, does not mean it never happened.

No, it is never a huge change; just a few tenths. Which takes the "hottest year ever" down to just another year.

What they do not explain is why it takes them a year or so, to pour over all the data, to come up with the revised data. Probably because when it takes so long no one pays attention.
I think you are missing the point. There is no global conspiracy. NOAA does revise data to account for error in measuring, not to make the data seem worse. Every time they do revise data is in the public forum, subject to peer review. If for some reason nearly every scientist in the world is wrong that humans are altering the climate science, it is not due to some big conspiracy. To me that argument always sounds like it is coming from people with tin foil hats.

Science does get things wrong from time to time. Theories can always be incorrect, but do you really believe that tens of thousands of scientists around the world have all come together to dupe the world? What do they really gain from that? If you look to who gains, it is most clearly the oil and gas industry. Perhaps you should point there first.
 
Last edited:

ValuJet

Moderator
Sep 28, 2000
22,626
19
0
Recent polls indicate a growing number of us are becoming deniers. Maybe because the long list of predicted calamities has failed to materialize. :biggrin2:
 

Bama4Ever831

All-American
Sep 13, 2005
2,209
0
45
35
Tuscaloosa, AL
Recent polls indicate a growing number of us are becoming deniers. Maybe because the long list of predicted calamities has failed to materialize. :biggrin2:
While true, the rise in "deniers" has been almost entirely along party lines. In other words, many republican voters have become "deniers," while the same can't be said for democratic voters.
 

Bama4Ever831

All-American
Sep 13, 2005
2,209
0
45
35
Tuscaloosa, AL
gullibility? brain damage? democrats seem to believe everything someone tells them. bonjour
The same can be said for republican voters. It seems they are just following what the oil and gas industry is telling them to believe. Many of those anti-climate change "articles" are funded directly by the oil and gas industry. Also you should look at campaign contributions to those that deny climate change is caused by man. You will find a ton of contributions from the oil and gas industry. Coincidence? Or is someone pulling the strings? Do republican voters think for themselves? (see what I did there?)
 

DzynKingRTR

TideFans Legend
Dec 17, 2003
42,213
29,372
287
Vinings, ga., usa
The same can be said for republican voters. It seems they are just following what the oil and gas industry is telling them to believe. Many of those anti-climate change "articles" are funded directly by the oil and gas industry. Also you should look at campaign contributions to those that deny climate change is caused by man. You will find a ton of contributions from the oil and gas industry. Coincidence? Or is someone pulling the strings? Do republican voters think for themselves? (see what I did there?)
and the other side is just penniless? the problem with the whole thing is both sides are making too much money off their "facts". my solution? screw it, we will be long dead if we are destroying the Earth and if we aren't even better.
 

Bama4Ever831

All-American
Sep 13, 2005
2,209
0
45
35
Tuscaloosa, AL
and the other side is just penniless? the problem with the whole thing is both sides are making too much money off their "facts". my solution? screw it, we will be long dead if we are destroying the Earth and if we aren't even better.
I really hate this argument. While it is true that scientists do earn a salary based on research grants, do you really believe that their compensation is similar to CEOs of oil/gas industry? How many scientists do you see with a yacht or a private plane? (Maybe just Al Gore)

NSF had a total budget of 7.6 billion in FY2014. This includes research in ALL areas of science not just climate change research.

Exxon Mobile's revenue - $394 billion

There is really no comparison in the oil and gas industry vs. the research expenditures on climate change research.

However, I will say that your "solution" is definitely the most likely outcome.
 

DzynKingRTR

TideFans Legend
Dec 17, 2003
42,213
29,372
287
Vinings, ga., usa
I really hate this argument. While it is true that scientists do earn a salary based on research grants, do you really believe that their compensation is similar to CEOs of oil/gas industry? How many scientists do you see with a yacht or a private plane? (Maybe just Al Gore)

NSF had a total budget of 7.6 billion in FY2014. This includes research in ALL areas of science not just climate change research.

Exxon Mobile's revenue - $394 billion

There is really no comparison in the oil and gas industry vs. the research expenditures on climate change research.

However, I will say that your "solution" is definitely the most likely outcome.
there are alternative fuel people that stand to make some $$$$$
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
While true, the rise in "deniers" has been almost entirely along party lines. In other words, many republican voters have become "deniers," while the same can't be said for democratic voters.
Everyone is a denier in this argument. Republicans who deny climate change on any level, and Democrats who deny the economic and standard-of-living depression that would result from doing everything necessary to dial back time (because they deny the expansion of nuclear energy, or absent doing everything necessary, deny the fact that we'll have no meaningful downward impact on global temperatures otherwise).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.