Climate Change: Here's what a lie really looks like
 

A lie is a willful act to change material facts or evidence, typically in a way that gives some artificial advantage to the individual making the change.

Here's what a lie really looks like.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html

Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

The global warming crowd has continued to compromise themselves. Its truly sad.

Is the earth warming? Since the sources of evidence are subject to manipulation, not only is the case harder to make because many of these "individuals of science" and the records they maintain have credibility issues but what then to we actually make of the data? The question gets much harder to objectively answer.

As it always has for me, it calls into question to motivation of those who want to use the levers of government to stifle honest debate on the issue, insist that such warming must be caused largely by human activity, and drain off precious national resources in their crusade.

The left loves to play the rhetorical game and accuse their political opponents of being "anti science". But is making a leap of faith based on highly questionable data any more scientific?

As you yourself were so eager to point out in another thread yesterday, it's an op ed.

Major climate change occurring here. Winter cold to top-down warm.

A "big lie" is when somebody keeps repeatedly scaring the public with apocalyptic visions of total economic and social collapse (that never seem to bear much fruit beyond the local and the temporary) that can, allegedly, only be solved through the decimation of an opposing political ideology.

Seems to me there is plenty of that to go around. Just go to any political propaganda outlet or blog, right or left, and witness this in full swing.

Dave

That being said, anyone who hasn't noticed the squirrely weather of late.............

I'm just sayin'.

Dave

No, yesterday was a blog, which is a bit lower on the pecking order of journalism. As you yourself were quick to point out yesterday, these are still facts. In this case, its also not an editorial. It is in the "News" section.

Been a pretty normal winter here. Cold, snow, etc. Its Michigan in the winter, so no real surprises.

No kidding. Over the last hour or so clouds have rolled in killing the top-down weather. High temp prediction lowered five degrees.

And there's that thing with the annual Alaska dog sled race---.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

All true, whell. You caught me but does this mean you've revised your standards for authoritativeness? After all, the principle sources in that op ed were previous posts from a blogger.

And, regardless of where the article is positioned, it's an op ed. I mean, read the fucking thing! Careful use of quotation marks around words like "adjustments", putting loaded language like "fiddling" right in the "biggest science scandal ever" right in the head and referring to a respected and accomplished scientist as a "fanatic".

Of course, none of this is in the least bit surprising. After all, The Telegraph is the UK equivalent to the Moonie Times.

Scientists behaving in scandalous manner :eek:

I want to remind people that, several years ago here, I said that the underlying reason behind all the efforts to discredit the valid science behind climate change is that the plutocrats want it to occur. Nobody seemed to take it seriously.

The simple fact is there are fortunes to be made through climate change, not least with regard to extractive industries like coal, oil and minerals. Removing the ice from the land and sea makes exploiting these resources feasible.

By the way, did anyone notice that Russia is in the process of militarizing the Arctic? Why do you suppose they'd want to do that?

John

Are you capable of contributing anything of substance?

Anything at all?

Because they know that there are fossil fuels to be harvested from that region. Fossil fuels below arctic ice. Which suggests that the region where fossil fuels exist must have been teaming with life at some point in the earth's history. Then climate change occurred - with no industrial smoke stacks and no SUV's anywhere to be found. Wonder how that happened?

In the meantime were moving forward with an energy strategy that is little more than a wish list, while Russia, China and others take steps to secure their national energy interests. Our energy strategy is informed by dubious "science" and divided by partisan politics. We are our own worst enemy in this regard.

Why am I not surprised his sole source 'Homewood' is a science denying blogger? :rolleyes:

This isn't journalism no matter how he dresses it up.

I'll grant you that The Telegraph is more of a tabloid, but such is the state of print journalism in much of the UK, and the U.S. is moving fast in that direction. However, once your rant abates you might note that the author of the article in the OP has been following this for a while, posted several stories on it. Also, the angle that some climatologists are cooking the books on global warming studies is not new.

Talk about specious arguments. :rolleyes:

Not the way you think. Things move. Check out plate tectonics. Also, south wasn't always south and north wasn't always north. Check out polar drift and geomagnetic reversal.

So, you agree that climate change is real after all! Good, whell! There just might be hope for you after all.

.......... nah!

Neither new nor proven and often, as with the "East Anglia University scandal", totally debunked.

At least you concede the point that the Telegraph is little more than a rag better suited to grocery store check out lines.

Your other point is illustrative that PT Barnum was correct in observations re. society at large. :rolleyes:

Beat me to continental drift, curses! ;)

I knowed you wuz thinkin' 'bout it. :D

John

I'm a third generation rockhound on my mother's side. I luvs me some geology. :D

One other note, the artic is still teeming with life presently. Muskeg peat bogs are prevalent throughout the region. When the AlCan highway was built, it wasn't uncommon to lose a D9 'dozer completely during the summer months. They sank to the bottom of the bogs. These bogs also emit copious amounts of methane as the temps creep up. Methane is another factor newly being studied. It is much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

Ennywho, another science denying thread bites the dust. ;)

This begs the question of why you constantly cite articles and op eds from the worst of what you acknowledge is a bad lot. I'm thinking of The Telegraph, of course, and also the Daily Mail, the Washington Times, Breitbart, Newsmax and CNS. Seems your efforts are directed more toward serving an agenda and less toward promoting truth and honesty. I take this as a clear indication of your overall lack of honesty.

Sorry to keep going back to this little fewmet but I keep finding little gems of irrelevance and dishonesty.

Of course I noticed that and I found it pretty pathetic that the author needed to cite himself as a source. Some journalist!

More importantly, what significance do you attach to the fact that this guy has been spouting the same nonsense for a long time? To me, it speaks to nothing more than Goebbels' dictum about the "big lie".

Wasn't the Daily Mail the one who had topless buxom gals on the second page?

No, no, no, Bob. It was The Sun. And it was on Page 3.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...97_468x610.jpg

When I lived in Princeton the local papers we had were the Trenton Times and the Trentonian. Like The Sun, The Trentonian was a tabloid and, also like The Sun, it had pinups but they were tamer and were shifted back to Page 6.

http://www3.allaroundphilly.com/blog...a-R-728494.jpg

John

Oh my stars! :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(United_Kingdom) Part of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Now I know where he found Megan Kelly and Andrea Tantaros.

http://img.fark.net/images/cache/g/g...A&f=1423458000 http://p1cdn03.thewrap.com/images/2013/10/Tantaros.jpg

The difference between these two is that Kelly is actually very smart but Tantaros is dumb as a bag of hammers.

John