Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 59540 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

truth-facts

Delaware, OH

#49583 Aug 26, 2014
The hits just keep on coming:

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.

You fking crazies can't do anything the honest way.Lie,cheat,steal,manipulate ,falsify anything and everything to get your agenda across.

And you wanna know why there are so-called deniers?
Jan

United States

#49584 Aug 26, 2014
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.

At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.

At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.

Last year, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology made headlines in the liberal media by claiming that 2013 was Australia's hottest year on record. This prompted Australia's alarmist-in-chief Tim Flannery - an English literature graduate who later went on to earn his scientific credentials with a PhD in palaeontology, digging up ancient kangaroo bones - to observe that global warming in Australia was "like climate change on steroids."

But we now know, thanks to research by Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy, that the hysteria this story generated was based on fabrications and lies.

Though the Bureau of Meteorology has insisted its data adjustments are "robust", it has been unable to come up with a credible explanation as to why it translated real-world data showing a cooling trend into homogenized data showing a warming trend.

She wrote:

“Repetition is a propaganda technique. The deletion of information from records, and the use of exaggeration and half-truths, are �others. The Bureau of Meteorology uses all these techniques, while wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda.’’

This is a global problem. Earlier this year, Breitbart reported that similarly dishonest adjustments had been made to temperature records by NASA and NOAA. Similarly implicated are the UK temperature records of the Met Office Hadley Centre and at Phil "Climategate" Jones's disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

One of the many disingenuous arguments used by climate alarmists against sceptics is mockingly to accuse them of being conspiracy theorists. "How could global warming possibly not be a problem when all the world's temperature data sets from Australia to the US to the UK clearly show that it is? Are you seriously suggesting that so many different scientists and so many distinguished institutions from across the globe would collude in such a massive lie?" their argument runs.

Our answer: yes we bloody well are.
SpaceBlues

Humble, TX

#49585 Aug 26, 2014
Jan wrote:
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.
At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.
At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.
Last year, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology made headlines in the liberal media by claiming that 2013 was Australia's hottest year on record. This prompted Australia's alarmist-in-chief Tim Flannery - an English literature graduate who later went on to earn his scientific credentials with a PhD in palaeontology, digging up ancient kangaroo bones - to observe that global warming in Australia was "like climate change on steroids."
But we now know, thanks to research by Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy, that the hysteria this story generated was based on fabrications and lies.
Though the Bureau of Meteorology has insisted its data adjustments are "robust", it has been unable to come up with a credible explanation as to why it translated real-world data showing a cooling trend into homogenized data showing a warming trend.
She wrote:
“Repetition is a propaganda technique. The deletion of information from records, and the use of exaggeration and half-truths, are �others. The Bureau of Meteorology uses all these techniques, while wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda.’’
This is a global problem. Earlier this year, Breitbart reported that similarly dishonest adjustments had been made to temperature records by NASA and NOAA. Similarly implicated are the UK temperature records of the Met Office Hadley Centre and at Phil "Climategate" Jones's disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
One of the many disingenuous arguments used by climate alarmists against sceptics is mockingly to accuse them of being conspiracy theorists. "How could global warming possibly not be a problem when all the world's temperature data sets from Australia to the US to the UK clearly show that it is? Are you seriously suggesting that so many different scientists and so many distinguished institutions from across the globe would collude in such a massive lie?" their argument runs.
Our answer: yes we bloody well are.
blah blah who's Jennifer M? Well, let's see:

Public position on global warming[wikipedia]

In an Australian Broadcasting Corporation interview she stated that...[i]t's not clear that climate change is being driven by carbon dioxide levels...whether or not we can reduce carbon dioxide levels, there will be climate change.[10]

On the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National program, Ockham's Razor, Dr Marohasy said... I agree with Professor Flannery that we need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.[11]

In an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National program, Counterpoint, she claimed recent cooling by starting with the temperature peak of the 1998 El Niño[12] event. She said that... there has been cooling if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last ten years....very unexpected not something that is being discussed. It should though be being discussed because it is very significant.[13]

P.S. Let the accused respond before you rush to hang them..

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#49586 Aug 26, 2014
Jan wrote:
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.
At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.
BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.

It said data from a selection of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenisation” to correct for anomalies. It was “very unlikely” that data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.

In a statement to The Weekend Australian BOM said the bulk of the scientific literature did not support the view that data homogenisation resulted in “diminished physical veracity in any particular climate data set’’.

Historical data was homogenised to account for a wide range of non-climate related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure and where it was located.

“All of these elements are subject to change over a period of 100 years, and such non-climate ­related changes need to be ­accounted for in the data for ­reliable analysis and monitoring of trends,’’ BOM said.

Account is also taken of temperature recordings from nearby stations. It took “a great deal of care with the climate record, and understands the importance of scientific integrity”.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affa...

Amberley was adjusted because it didn't agree with other local stations.

Is it more likely that Amberley was right and the other local stations that showed warming were wrong?

At least three local stations show warming and are consistent with each other:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/adjustin...

Is there any reason to believe that Amberley is wrong?

Yes.

There's a sudden temperature drop in the raw record around 1980- suggesting a change in the way temperatures were measured rather than a climate shift:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da ta/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/5 /50194568000.gif

Once again, deniers are deluding themselves with stupid conspiracy theories.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#49587 Aug 26, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.
It said data from a selection of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenisation” to correct for anomalies. It was “very unlikely” that data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.
In a statement to The Weekend Australian BOM said the bulk of the scientific literature did not support the view that data homogenisation resulted in “diminished physical veracity in any particular climate data set’’.
Historical data was homogenised to account for a wide range of non-climate related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure and where it was located.
“All of these elements are subject to change over a period of 100 years, and such non-climate ­related changes need to be ­accounted for in the data for ­reliable analysis and monitoring of trends,’’ BOM said.
Account is also taken of temperature recordings from nearby stations. It took “a great deal of care with the climate record, and understands the importance of scientific integrity”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affa...
Amberley was adjusted because it didn't agree with other local stations.
Is it more likely that Amberley was right and the other local stations that showed warming were wrong?
At least three local stations show warming and are consistent with each other:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/adjustin...
Is there any reason to believe that Amberley is wrong?
Yes.
There's a sudden temperature drop in the raw record around 1980- suggesting a change in the way temperatures were measured rather than a climate shift:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da ta/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/5 /50194568000.gif
Once again, deniers are deluding themselves with stupid conspiracy theories.
I certainly thank you for this comprehensive response. Dr M is floundering wildly for sure. And marketing her wares, too.

She was allegedly at the heartless convention in Nevada last month.

P.S. I'm hoping your last link will cure itself in this reply. It happens often on topix.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#49588 Aug 26, 2014
Jan wrote:
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.
At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.
At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.
Last year, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology made headlines in the liberal media by claiming that 2013 was Australia's hottest year on record. This prompted Australia's alarmist-in-chief Tim Flannery - an English literature graduate who later went on to earn his scientific credentials with a PhD in palaeontology, digging up ancient kangaroo bones - to observe that global warming in Australia was "like climate change on steroids."
But we now know, thanks to research by Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy, that the hysteria this story generated was based on fabrications and lies.
Though the Bureau of Meteorology has insisted its data adjustments are "robust", it has been unable to come up with a credible explanation as to why it translated real-world data showing a cooling trend into homogenized data showing a warming trend.
She wrote:
“Repetition is a propaganda technique. The deletion of information from records, and the use of exaggeration and half-truths, are &#65533;others. The Bureau of Meteorology uses all these techniques, while wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda.’’
This is a global problem. Earlier this year, Breitbart reported that similarly dishonest adjustments had been made to temperature records by NASA and NOAA. Similarly implicated are the UK temperature records of the Met Office Hadley Centre and at Phil "Climategate" Jones's disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
One of the many disingenuous arguments used by climate alarmists against sceptics is mockingly to accuse them of being conspiracy theorists. "How could global warming possibly not be a problem when all the world's temperature data sets from Australia to the US to the UK clearly show that it is? Are you seriously suggesting that so many different scientists and so many distinguished institutions from across the globe would collude in such a massive lie?" their argument runs.
Our answer: yes we bloody well are.
In a post on her blog, Marohasy "I learnt a lot during the six years – especially early on with Andrew McIntyre teaching me how to write opinion (without reference to endnotes or footnotes)..."

I suppose if you don't have to provide support, you can say anything.
truth-facts

Chillicothe, OH

#49589 Aug 26, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.
It said data from a selection of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenisation” to correct for anomalies. It was “very unlikely” that data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.
In a statement to The Weekend Australian BOM said the bulk of the scientific literature did not support the view that data homogenisation resulted in “diminished physical veracity in any particular climate data set’’.
Historical data was homogenised to account for a wide range of non-climate related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure and where it was located.
“All of these elements are subject to change over a period of 100 years, and such non-climate ­related changes need to be ­accounted for in the data for ­reliable analysis and monitoring of trends,’’ BOM said.
Account is also taken of temperature recordings from nearby stations. It took “a great deal of care with the climate record, and understands the importance of scientific integrity”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affa...
Amberley was adjusted because it didn't agree with other local stations.
Is it more likely that Amberley was right and the other local stations that showed warming were wrong?
At least three local stations show warming and are consistent with each other:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/adjustin...
Is there any reason to believe that Amberley is wrong?
Yes.
There's a sudden temperature drop in the raw record around 1980- suggesting a change in the way temperatures were measured rather than a climate shift:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da ta/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/5 /50194568000.gif
Once again, deniers are deluding themselves with stupid conspiracy theories.
No need to believe in conspiracy theories when you warmist put out false and manipulated data. You jerk offs do the work for us.Then when one of your so-called experts gets caught you scramble with excuses and more false/lying data.

Typical of libRETARDS.Keep telling the same lie over and over and over again until you find suckers to believe the horsesht! "If you like your plan,you can keep your plan" Remember that libretarded bold faced lie?
Amazing how stupid

Minneapolis, MN

#49590 Aug 26, 2014
truth-facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to believe in conspiracy theories when you warmist put out false and manipulated data. You jerk offs do the work for us.Then when one of your so-called experts gets caught you scramble with excuses and more false/lying data.
Typical of libRETARDS.Keep telling the same lie over and over and over again until you find suckers to believe the horsesht! "If you like your plan,you can keep your plan" Remember that libretarded bold faced lie?
Agree, there should be a law against misleading a nation. It should be a felony with life without parole as punishment. I'd send Al Gore to prison first.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#49591 Aug 26, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.
It said data from a selection of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenisation” to correct for anomalies. It was “very unlikely” that data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.
In a statement to The Weekend Australian BOM said the bulk of the scientific literature did not support the view that data homogenisation resulted in “diminished physical veracity in any particular climate data set’’.
Historical data was homogenised to account for a wide range of non-climate related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure and where it was located.
“All of these elements are subject to change over a period of 100 years, and such non-climate ­related changes need to be ­accounted for in the data for ­reliable analysis and monitoring of trends,’’ BOM said.
Account is also taken of temperature recordings from nearby stations. It took “a great deal of care with the climate record, and understands the importance of scientific integrity”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affa...
Amberley was adjusted because it didn't agree with other local stations.
Is it more likely that Amberley was right and the other local stations that showed warming were wrong?
At least three local stations show warming and are consistent with each other:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/adjustin...
Is there any reason to believe that Amberley is wrong?
Yes.
There's a sudden temperature drop in the raw record around 1980- suggesting a change in the way temperatures were measured rather than a climate shift:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da ta/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/5 /50194568000.gif
Once again, deniers are deluding themselves with stupid conspiracy theories.
>>The unhomogenized/raw mean annual minimum temperature trend for Rutherglen for the 100-year period from January 1913 through to December 2013 shows a slight cooling trend of 0.35 degree C per 100 years. After homogenization there is a warming trend of 1.73 degree C per 100 years. This warming trend is essentially achieved by progressively dropping down the temperatures from 1973 back through to 1913. For the year of 1913 the difference between the raw temperature and the ACORN-SAT temperature is a massive 1.8 degree C.

…
In the case of Rutherglen the Bureau has just let the algorithms keep jumping down the temperatures from 1973. To repeat the biggest change between the raw and the new values is in 1913 when the temperature has been jumped down a massive 1.8 degree C.In doing this homogenization a warming trend is created when none previously existed.

The Bureau has tried to justify all of this to Graham Lloyd at The Australian newspaper by stating that there must have been a site move, its flagging the years 1966 and 1974. But the biggest adjustment was made in 1913! In fact as Bill Johnston explains in today’s newspaper, the site never has moved.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/26/austral...
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#49592 Aug 26, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
In a post on her blog, Marohasy "I learnt a lot during the six years – especially early on with Andrew McIntyre teaching me how to write opinion (without reference to endnotes or footnotes)..."
I suppose if you don't have to provide support, you can say anything.
What babble. As if learning a writing technique is the equivalent of not "providing support".

Get someone to think for you. Your efforts are deficient.
Amazing how stupid

Minneapolis, MN

#49593 Aug 26, 2014
Amazing how stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree, there should be a law against misleading a nation. It should be a felony with life without parole as punishment. I'd send Al Gore to prison first.
Followed closely by Barak Obama.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#49594 Aug 26, 2014
Global warming is here, human-caused and probably already dangerous – and it’s increasingly likely that the heating trend could be irreversible, a draft of a new international science report says.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday sent governments a final draft of its synthesis report, which combines three earlier, gigantic documents by the Nobel Prize-winning group. There is little in the report that wasn’t in the other more-detailed versions, but the language is more stark and the report attempts to connect the different scientific disciplines studying problems caused by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/glo...
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#49595 Aug 26, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Global warming is here, human-caused...
You phony.

Every time you find another another story to post (adding CO2), then post it (adding more CO2), the go off and look for more (adding more CO2) you demonstrate how little this "science" really means to you.

You're a global warming hypocrite. EVERYONE knows it. No one comes to defend you. Cuz they can't. They can't defend themselves.

How do you continue to post knowing each one demonstrates you to be a bigger and bigger fraud and phony?

Hypocrite.
Amazing how stupid

Minneapolis, MN

#49596 Aug 26, 2014
OK, throw in GW Bush to satisfy the Libertards. Can't ya see the 3 of them chatting in a cell?
Amazing how stupid

Minneapolis, MN

#49597 Aug 26, 2014
In GITMO sharing a water board!!
SpaceBlues

Cypress, TX

#49598 Aug 26, 2014
Sure, modern science is settled about the man-made global warming and climate change. However, I do post new reports and latest news as appropriate.

I don't need any approval to publish in a public forum, no matter how obscene and defaming denier posts are about my posts or me.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#49599 Aug 26, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Sure, modern science is settled about the man-made global warming and climate change. However, I do post new reports and latest news as appropriate.
I don't need any approval to publish in a public forum, no matter how obscene and defaming denier posts are about my posts or me.
DENIER!

Why do you keep mocking the "science" you claim to support?

Hypocrite.

btw, obscene and defaming? Gawd... you really are desperate. Those are just big words you think are relevant. Grow up.
Hooliganism

Los Alamos, NM

#49600 Aug 26, 2014
Enter the beast.
truth-facts

Delaware, OH

#49601 Aug 26, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Sure, modern science is settled about the man-made global warming and climate change. However, I do post new reports and latest news as appropriate.
I don't need any approval to publish in a public forum, no matter how obscene and defaming denier posts are about my posts or me.
The only modern science that is settled is the science you agree with TROLL!The only reports you post are the ones you agree with azz hat!Your not fooling anyone.
You sounded like a little sissy,I don't need any approval I'm gonna take my ball and go home,boo hoo!!!!!!!!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#49602 Aug 27, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Global warming is here, human-caused and probably already dangerous – and it’s increasingly likely that the heating trend could be irreversible, a draft of a new international science report says. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday sent governments a final draft of its synthesis report, which combines three earlier, gigantic documents by the Nobel Prize-winning group. There is little in the report that wasn’t in the other more-detailed versions, but the language is more stark and the report attempts to connect the different scientific disciplines studying problems caused by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas.[URL deleted]
Too late, climate already is irreversible.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Dr Guru 214,604
News Students seeking sugar daddies for tuition, ren... 3 hr Fumblementally ill 3
News Toxic Dust from a Dying California Lake 6 hr Three Psyche 1
News As California's Largest Lake Evaporates, A Coun... 6 hr Three Psyche 3
News Evidence scant California's licensed illegal im... 15 hr tomin cali 4
Bullet train or desalination plants? 16 hr Tebow_Obama 1
News California Vietnam War memorial to the missing ... 17 hr anartfart 1
More from around the web