A new day, a new climate gate scandal

We have said it before; if something keeps changing its name, it is because it involves with fraud or some other type of crime. Case and point, the global warming, or as the kids call it these days: the climate change.

If we just ignore the fact that melting ice will not cause mass flood (because of Archimedes law, the floating ice caps have already displace water proportional to their mass, and if the ice cap melts, its mass doesn’t change). A ton of other previously proven false claims, the new evidence shows more lies and trickery by the so called climate scientist (which is a made up term! Thermo-dynamics is the closest scientific major that I accept as a not made up stuff to study the weather pattern).

There is a long article by the daily mail that goes point by point, but the gest of it is as follows:

1- A high-level “whistle blower” has accused the America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of breaching its scientific standards

Well, F me! It sounds like: a bunch of lefties tried to bend the rules for higher goals.

2- His name is John J Bates, a Climate and satellites Consultant.

Look at him! Hey! thank you for letting us know your colleagues are corrupt…. but Sir, I don’t know if you noticed it yet! you are a loser! you just let us know that you’ve spent you whole life in a made of pseudoscience. It is like you just blow the whistle on voodoo! guess what? we all knew Voodoo was not real!

3- The published data not only are skewed and just made up; they are published in a rushed way and hurriedly to support the Paris agreement.

Is it me or after the last election and all the polls with their 10 point faulty result, the very word published study discredit an article; especially, if the study or the polls are somehow conveniently designed to support a greater good scenario. Where are all the data and polls that prove some hate facts?

4- This new scandal reminds everyone of 2009 climate-gate email scandal that showed it is just smokes and mirror and bunch of corrupt individuals made a “scientific” (equate) cartel to spread falsehoods.

5- The new finding shows both lower rate of the “so-called” warming and even lower spread of it.

We have said it before; if something keeps changing its name, it is because it involves with fraud or some other type of crime. Case and point, the global warming, or as the kids call it these days: the climate change.

If we just ignore the fact that melting ice will not cause mass flood (because of Archimedes law, the floating ice caps have already displace water proportional to their mass, and if the ice cap melts, its mass doesn’t change). A ton of other previously proven false claims, the new evidence shows more lies and trickery by the so called climate scientist (which is a made up term! Thermo-dynamics is the closest scientific major that I accept as a not made up stuff to study the weather pattern).

There is a long article by the daily mail that goes point by point, but the gest of it is as follows:

1- A high-level “whistle blower” has accused the America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of breaching its scientific standards

Well, F me! It sounds like: a bunch of lefties tried to bend the rules for higher goals.

2- His name is John J Bates, a Climate and satellites Consultant.

3- The published data not only are skewed and just made up; they are published in a rushed way and hurriedly to support the Paris agreement.

Is it me or after the last election and all the polls with their 10 point faulty result, the very word published study discredit an article; especially, if the study or the polls are somehow conveniently designed to support a greater good scenario. Where are all the data and polls that prove some hate facts?

4- This new scandal reminds everyone of 2009 climate-gate email scandal that showed it is just smokes and mirror and bunch of corrupt individuals made a “scientific” (equate) cartel to spread falsehoods.

5- The new finding shows both lower rate of the “so-called” warming and even lower spread of it.

6- The rest of the article is just trying to explain why the timely fraudulent study had false information and how the scientists have produced the information; which in my humble opinion doesn’t matter. They have cheated! That’s it! It doesn’t matter if they have multiplied their so called result by 2X or just writ done fictional numbers or used Photoshop to produce charts. They give us this chart as hey look the new date with a better calculation is different. Meanwhile I have lost all sort of interest in the whole climate study! Climate study can be the philosophy of history of Chinese influence in the lost civilization that lived in Tibet. It is unnecessary! It is all made up!

This is the “technical” part from dailymail: (once again, as far as I’m concerned… not only they are losers and cheaters… they didn’t need to provide the following information! they have cheated and got caught! they just could have made it all up without even leaving their house or reading one book! they just could Photoshop their charts! and their results!)

The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.

Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’

ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’

Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both absolute temperatures and recent global warming.

The second dataset used by the Pausebuster paper was a new version of NOAA’s land records, known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), an analysis over time of temperature readings from about 4,000 weather stations spread across the globe.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*