NOAA - Fake news
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
Science is never political, people can be, but Science isn't. It can be politicized but Science only scares the right it would seem. Everything ya'll don''t like is just fake or political. But you have the right Dude in charge pushing your brand! lol
And science will limit the damage Biff does regarding his quest to do things like implode the EPA. He seems to think that results from environmental and health impact assessments are negotiable. Science will prevail here.
Depends on how much damage he does. Remember any 'loosening' he intends regarding things like mercury emissions impact not only agriculture, but also fish and wildlife. That would be devastating.
"I said Charles don't you ever crave /
to appear on the front of the Daily Mail /
Dressed in your mothers bridal veil"
That's some lyrics from The Smiths song "The Queen Is Dead, which I became familiar with from U-92 back in the lines. Good song and the album of the same name is a really good album.
Why would someone site The Daily Mail as a source for something scientific. It's a tabloid.
Step back and look at this. We have an entire scientific community doing what they do each day, mostly out of the eye of the public, and they study this stuff and come to their conclusions and yet somehow these people that devote their lives to this are all completely wrong but some tabloids and politically oriented think tanks have it all correct. Stop and think for a minute. Does that even make any sense?
to appear on the front of the Daily Mail /
Dressed in your mothers bridal veil"
That's some lyrics from The Smiths song "The Queen Is Dead, which I became familiar with from U-92 back in the lines. Good song and the album of the same name is a really good album.
Why would someone site The Daily Mail as a source for something scientific. It's a tabloid.
Step back and look at this. We have an entire scientific community doing what they do each day, mostly out of the eye of the public, and they study this stuff and come to their conclusions and yet somehow these people that devote their lives to this are all completely wrong but some tabloids and politically oriented think tanks have it all correct. Stop and think for a minute. Does that even make any sense?
Yeah, the people that are going to be paid a relatively small amount of money by non-profit universities to study reality no matter what they conclude are the ones making it up. The fossil fuel industry with hundreds of billions of dollars to lose are the ones we can trust.
Please tell me what other branches of science are completely wrong because all the researches in it are corrupted by money. It's amazing how the rest of science seems to work quite well but this one field is somehow completely corrupted.
The root problem of this is how political discourse happens in this country. It is so adversarial that people take opposite sides no matter what. So 25 years ago this notion of global warming comes up and because the left is the side that automatically takes any environmental issue, they take global warming. And since the right has to automatically be against the left, they go against global warming.
Now it may well have turned out that global warming was nonsense and if it had I have no doubt that a segment of the left would still today be railing that we're warming the earth. But the research didn't turn out that way. It turned out that yeah, putting a lot of carbon into the air warms the earth. The fact itself isn't good or bad, it just is. But because of our adversarial political system the people on the right feel bound to deny global warming even after the data is in.
If you want to batter the left on a scientific issue on which they're actually wrong, take up GMOs.
I don't know what you're talking about (and neither do you). Is it something from the article you posted? I don't read The Daily Mail.
Yeah, me and thousand of people that devote their lives to studying this are wrong. It's tabloids and the fossil fuel industry and the political people that are right.
And BTW, a year or two ago when current Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was CEO of Exxon he advocated for a carbon tax (as did some GOP elder statesmen just last week). Maybe this isn't all just a Commie plot after all.
Choosing not to read The Daily Mail isn't choosing to be ignorant about science. Of all the publications out there why would you even want to read about science from The Daily Mail?
Are you denying that a whistleblower came out and discredited the NOAA date presented in Paris? I can post 10 other sites that share that fact. You may not believe him, but you would have zero basis to do so. It may turn out he is crazy and a liar but again no basis thus far to draw that conclusion.
Did you read the East Anglia e-mails? "Hide the decline". Use Dr. Mann's "trick". Openly plotting to stop publication of skeptical articles. Open plotting to stop peer review of skeptical research?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/
https://thefederalist.com/2017/02/1...udy-after-whistleblower-exposes-fake-science/
http://yanoonews.com/politics/whist...ference.DAoJVFMOUAJbCAQGU1BWVgMLDwcGBloH.html
Science is mostly pure. You're right , Science is politicized and numbers can be manipulated to sell an idea.
"Science only scares the right it would seem?" Reset the abortion debate. Who's afraid of the truth in that matter?
I am in complete agreement. We have found common ground. The climate has warmed since our emergence for the Little Ice Age in around 1850. How much is due to man is unknowable at this point. We simply to not understand the science well enough. It is very new, relatively speaking.
A short synopsis: A whistleblower has come forward stating the dataset that NOAA released just before the Paris accords contained non-ORR (operational) data where they had adjusted buoy temperatures upward. Amazingly, after the accords, the single computer that contained the data mysteriously crashed, so the results could never be examined nor duplicated again. NOAA has been accused of adjusting current temperatures up, and historical temperatures down, to create a larger sense of warming over time.
I don't read The Daily Mail. I've heard of Michael Mann's hockey stick but I don't know much about it. I did look into the East Angola thing way back when and I know that that was BS (the twisting of ordinary e-mails I mean).
All that said, the truth of any proposition is the sum total of the evidence, not one item. Piltdown Man was a hoax but that didn't mean evolution was wrong. Even is someone does lie or cheat it doesn't mean global warming isn't happening. Global warming, or any proposition, stands or falls on the totality of the evidence.
Nothing as far as I can tell. What does the question have to do with what we're talking about?
I actually agree with some of your post but to claim poverty of funding sources for scientists "proving" global warming is factually inaccurate. There are huge sums of money involved. Federal grants, private grants. billionaires like Tom Steyer, etc. Plenty and plenty of money. According to the GAO, The Feds alone spend over $10B annually on climate change research and related issues. We all know what outcome the government wants from all those dollars.
There is ALWAYS money for researchers to research, no matter what the topic. That's how research gets done. Money didn't magically appear to fund climate change research.
If somehow tomorrow the climate stuff was known with certainty and agreed to by everyone then the people researching it today would start researching something else and there would be money to fund it. It's not like their livelihoods depend on this particular topic.
I don't know who Tom Steyer is but if he's some rich guy funding studies for which he wants a certain conclusion then I don't doubt it but there are always plenty of folk like that on both sides.
LOL. To keep grant money flowing, scientists generally produce the results wanted by the funders. Obama wanted global warming to be true. Desperately. You essentially claimed purely altruistic motives for scientists since the money was so slight. Wrong, the money is huge, the grants are huge.
You posted this:
Yeah, the people that are going to be paid a relatively small amount of money by non-profit universities to study reality no matter what they conclude are the ones making it up.
WRONG.
Yeah, Obama wanted it. I bet he personally called people up and threatened them if they didn't come up with right results. After all, the conclusions of the researches changed completely after Obama came into office. (No they didn't, they were the same as when W was in office.)
The US military plans and operates under the assumption that global warming is occurring. It did so under W, it did so under Obama and it does so today under Trump. Why?
Obama made global warming a priority. A major priority. A huge funding priority. He entered into the Paris Climate Accords by going around Congress (no treaty because it never would have passed). An earlier version was defeated 98-0. He entered into an agreement with China foregoing Congress. He promised reductions today in exchange for Chinese reductions starting in 2030 (yeah, that will happen).
BTW, I can't find anything where it says that Bush made global warming a DOD priority. I did find some leftists articles claiming Bush suppressed global warming findings.
And no, Obama did far more to the military regarding global warming than Bush. Obama made it a DOD priority. He is a true believer.
Obama believed global warming was happening so he did something about it. That's kinda what a POTUS is supposed to do. That doesn't mean research done while he was POTUS was tainted.
Trump is POTUS now. He can tell the military to start operating differently anytime he feels like it.
Over $7 billion by 2009, but it's just small potatoes.
That number exceeded $10B by the time Obama left office.
You may be right, I thought the spending I cited was through 2016. I was wrong as seen below:
Figure 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 1993-2014
Needless to say, it is not the "small" amount OP reported. It is huge and was growing considerably under Obama.