Whistleblower

>>8654638
>faux news
kek
Guess what OP? I'm a physicist whistleblower and gravity was fake all along, go jump off a building and fly like an American eagle.

File: 1485563349538.jpg (347KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1000x666px

Why are you guys even shilling against climate change? You're winning whether people believe in it or not.

>>8654878
>paying some central governing body money for invisible gas
>winning

choose one

>>8654638
Hm. Faux News is the wrong source to quote. Who can believe them? So I went and looked for counter points. Umm... none. However, the original article appeared in the UK's Daily Mail. It's better to quote that:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
Highly disappointing. The article appeared yesterday, revised this morning. It will be interesting to see what NOAA has to say (they have done shenanigans with fisheries before, so this is plausible).

>>8654883
>reaping huge profits and being unstoppable despite opposition
>winning
Pick two

>>8654638
>rushed
>nothing on whether they purposefully cut corners or lied

It's literally fucking nothing.

more fake news

>>8654888
https://youtu.be/Qbn1rCZz1ow
Ah man, I've seen this episode before, they even got the same author to do it again. How surprising

>>8654638
>>A whistleblower says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rushed a landmark study claiming the planet was warming much faster than expected in order to influence international climate negotiations.

Okay, but what about the other organizations around the world who monitor the climate? Are they implicated in this scandal as well? Should we also suspect other evidence that shows the climate is warming?

>>8654638
honestly the best thing we can do to stop climate change is to just fucking nuke china

everything else we do pales in comparison

>>8654921
Nuking USA would be better, less lives lost for more benefit.

>>8654642

Yeah I bet you still think the NSA isn't spying on you.

>>8654638
Global warming is a scam, alot have said this for a while now. 30 years ago they were saying the earth was cooling

>>8654929
I'm in Canada good luck.

File: Octopus in Miami Beach Garage_1479157233645_8339395_ver1.0_640_360.jpg (152KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 640x360px

>>8654638

I bet Al Gore put that octopus there.

>>8654932
https://youtu.be/EU_AtHkB4Ms

>>8654901
but it cant be fake news, the only companies proven by wikileaks to be fake news taking direct orders from political parties and organizations are cnn, msnbc, huffpost, etc.

>>8654941
Haven't you heard? Fake news is a cognitive defense mechanism. If presented with evidence contrary to your beliefs it's fake news.

>>8654967

how many levels of irony are we on, senpai

>>8654932
That tired old saw has run its course. You really don't have to keep saying that. The concept of GW being a hoax is so easily disproved as to make your statement laughable.

But I'm a little concerned about who John K Bates is. Clearly the author Dave Rose is a fossil-fuel shill, but was Bates a real person and did he go through this at NOAA and say this to his supers, or is Rose's dick so far into the pocket of Exxon that he's making this up? That's the question.

>>8654937
orally and aurally kekked

>>8654979
I can't tell which way is up anymore.

>>8654982
Grr... John J Bates. not K.

>>8654982
I'm not seeing any sources in the daily mail article and it would shock me if a whistleblower went straight to a known fossil fuel shill to do it at all. Probably entirely made up as he's done it several times now.
>>8654907

>>8654878
You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on /pol/ who'd be genuinely opposed to the fundamental goal of increasing device efficiency and weaning ourselves off of coal and oil (especially foreign oil)... but the problem is how ass-backwards climate change activists go about the matter.

Just look at how inconsistent they are about natural gas and nuclear power - both of which are far far better alternatives than coal or oil, and are far more efficient and cost-effective than wind or solar currently are, yet the same people you're likely to find railing against Republicans for questioning global warming are equally likely to be rallying against new nuclear plants or natural gas usage.

There are too many half-measures when it comes to dealing with climate change - the Democratic Party has spent the last decade thinking it can tax and regulate our way out of global warming while refusing to support economic sanctions against major polluters like China or support research into technologies that could actively lower GHG levels instead of just slowing or stabilizing their increase.

Oh wow look, he made another thread. It's not like we don't already have 4+ threads in the catalog about climate change.

The guy that is called a "whistle-blower" wasn't even involved in the landmark study from 2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/05/mail-on-sunday-launches-the-first-salvo-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists
>The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work. NOAA's process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups. John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) mis-representation of the processes that actually occured. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.


Also, see this:
http://variable-variability.blogspot.ie/2017/02/david-roses-alternative-reality-noaa-Karl.html

Or this rebuttal from Zeke Hausfather, who worked at BEST and verified NOAA's results independently:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

Once again you have the media pushing a narrative of denial without even bothering to make sure they got their story straight.
Fox News simply lifted this story from David Rose's Daily Mail piece, hilarious.

>>8654638
Scam """science""" BTFO again lmao

>>8655101
Thanks for sharing that. I thought it sounded all kinds of weird.

>>8655056
Fair enough

File: 0 Global Cooling.jpg (63KB, 509x304px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 509x304px

>>8654982
>>>8654932
>That tired old saw has run its course. You really don't have to keep saying that. The concept of GW being a hoax is so easily disproved as to make your statement laughable.

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

An 83% Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence Scientific ‘Consensus’ During 1960s, ’70s
>As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” >is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the >1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate >influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged >CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the
>“non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.

File: Hansen 1981.png (120KB, 689x628px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 689x628px

>>8656887
>>8654982
>>8654932
Bryson, Reid A., and Gerald J. Dittberner. "A non-equilibrium model of hemispheric mean surface temperature." Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 33.11 (1976): 2094-2106.
Wendland, Wayne M., and Reid A. Bryson. "Atmospheric dustiness, Man, and climatic change." Biological Conservation 2.2 (1970): 125-128.


Kosiba, A. "The problem of climate cooling after 1939 (in Polnisch)." Czas. geogr 33 (1962): 63.

Fletcher, Joseph O. "Polar ice and the global climate machine." Bull. Atomic Scientists (1970): 40-47.
"... the cooling effect of the 1950s and 1960s shows that some other factor is more than countering the warming effect of CO2.... Man's contribution to the atmospheric dust load is increasing at an exponential rate.

Rasool, S. Ichtiaque, and Stephen H. Schneider. "Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate." Science 173.3992 (1971): 138-141.
" An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background... is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

Bray, J. R. "Climatic change and atmospheric pollution." Proceedings (New Zealand Ecological Society). New Zealand Ecological Society (Inc.), 1971.

EUSAESSER, HUGH W. "HAS MAN. THROUGH INCREASING EMISSIONS OF PARTICIPATES, CHANGED THE CLIMATE?." Atmosphere-Surface Exchange of Particulate and Gaseous Pollutants (1974): 41.

Frisken, W. R. "Extended industrial revolution and climate change." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 52.7 (1971): 500-508.

Lamb, Hubert H. The current trend of world climate: A report on the early 1970's and a perspective. Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, 1974. "Much has been written about the global cooling... has been overstressed as regards to its practical implications... There are solid grounds for regarding this as a dangerous misconception."

File: Consensus on Global Cooling.png (240KB, 513x460px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 513x460px

>>8656890
>>8656887
>>8654982
>>8654932

Kukla, George J., and Helena J. Kukla. "Insolation regime of interglacials." Quaternary Research 2.3 (1972): 412-424. "...the prognosis is for a long-lasting global cooling more severe than any experiened hitherto by civilized mankind."

NEEDS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. "LAWRENCE UVERMORE LABORATORY." (1972). "Global cooling of natural origin could exceed in magnitude changes experienced in historical times.

Potter, Gerald L., et al. "Possible climatic impact of tropical deforestation." (1975): 697-698.

Kukla, George J., and Robert K. Matthews. "When will the present interglacial end?." Science 178.4057 (1972): 190-202.

Gribbin, John. "Cause and effects of global cooling." Nature 254 (1975): 14.


Lamb, H. H. "Changes of climate." Wright & Moseley (1975): 169-188.

Fletcher, Joseph O. MANAGING CLIMATE RESOURCES. No. RAND-P-4000. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, 1969. "We may already be inadvertantly influencing global climate. ... a weakening circulation, southward shifts of ice boundary..."

Braslau, Norman, and J. V. Dave. "Effect of aerosols on the transfer of solar energy through realistic model atmospheres. Part I: Non-absorbing aerosols." Journal of applied meteorology 12.4 (1973): 601-615.

Bray, J. R. "Climatic change and atmospheric pollution." Proceedings (New Zealand Ecological Society). New Zealand Ecological Society (Inc.), 1971. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide content was concluded to have Had An Ambiguous Climatic Influence and may be less important than sometimes considered. Several studies have suggested increased turbidity has produced a recent global cooling trend.

Carter, L. J. 1970. The global environment: M.I.T. study looks for danger signs. Science 169: 660-662. Increased turbidity causes gobal cooling.

Lamb, H. H. 1969. Activite volcanique et climat. Revue de Geographie Physique et de Geologie Dynamique 11: 363-380.

>>8655101
>Also, see this:
>http://variable-variability.blogspot.ie/2017/02/david-roses-alternative-reality-noaa-Karl.html
>Or this rebuttal from Zeke Hausfather, who worked at BEST and verified NOAA's results independently:
>https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

See this rebuttal to the purported "rebuttals"
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

I find it interesting that so many anons on /sci/ are NOT shocked and appalled by what appears to be serious scientific malfeasance: using bad data (near trendless buoy data "corrected" to artificially warm ship-intake data) to achieve a political purpose.

One would think that their postings here are not motivated by an interest in science and protecting the scientific method.

Wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

>>8656887
>>8656890
>>8656893
>>8656899
Not this shit again. That Notruckszone list is laughable bullshit, half of the links are to newspaper articles and the other half dont actually support global cooling.
Go away and get some new material.

>>8654934
Ever heard of "Five Eyes" you cuck

File: no0715_062759_n7eua_171.jpg (574KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

574KB, 2048x2048px

we had the same thread yesterday

>>8656887
>>8656890
>>8656893
>>8656899
Are you seriously going to start with this global cooling shit again? Do you not remember how you posted the same notrickzone links in previous threads, and people gave very detailed rebuttals to the "270" something papers that "proved" there was a "consensus" on global cooling, many of the articles being from non-peer reviewed sources like newspaper articles, magazines, letters, etc?
You're like a broken record here, you keep bringing up the same old tired bullshit that we've already been over 1000x. I remember all the times people replied to you in the previous threads, and you just ignored them. Stop pushing this shitty narrative that's been disproved time and again.