No. They have to explain why it’s true. That’s how these things work. Every single data recording station shows no change to temperature since 1880. They have absolutely nothing.
Last year’s temperatures were primarily driven by human-caused climate change and the El Niño weather pattern, which has a global warming effect, per the AP. At the same time, natural ocean variations, increased solar activity and the 2022 eruption of an underwater volcano in Tonga contributed to the heat.
The bold part is the whole purpose of the article. Mankind contributes virtually nothing to "climate change".
Explain to me as to why Kanastan had a real shitty summer this year and right now Northern Ontario has record snow fall and at this very moment we're under another heavy snow warning with an expected 3ft by Friday...and maybe these fag goof scientists can explain as to why Lake Superior remained below 60°F in the shallow bays and a constant 38°F in the big water...the reason for climate change is to employ a whole lot of stupid fucking people ...one of the head IPCC scientists was a fired locomotive engineer from Australia...apparently he was the only scientist capable of reading a thermometer.
How long is the temperature record? Maybe 150 years in some heavily populated white regions. But there are rural and remote places where the temperature record is only 20 or 30 years old. That doesn’t stop them from estimating historic temperatures where they were never recorded. You think they will make those estimates in an unbiased way?
What about places where they were recorded? Were they measuring temperature at the same precision in london in 1880 as they are today? No? Well, do you think they will analyze those temperatures in such a way that artificially reduces those old data points to slightly lower temperatures statistically? You can bet they will.
In fact, for decades of temperature records in the US, they actually revised recorded temperatures by shifting them downward to make temperature increases seem more dramatic. They used some flimsy statistical reasoning for doing this. But it was incredibly dishonest. They literally revised the temperatures on the books.
You can’t depend on them to perform data collection and analysis honestly. They will cherry pick their data sets or literally alter data in some cases. The real fuckery comes in the statistical analysis though. Most people think that data analysis is very straight forward. It isn’t . There are lots of ways to lie with statistics with out technically lying. I used to do it on the job. Its a dirty business. If I have a complex data set, and I understand it and you don’t, I can characterize that data in many different ways to tell whatever story I want. You don’t understand the system so you are none the wiser to my lies. There are a hundred little subjective decisions one has to make in such an analysis. Lots of little opportunities to push the trend one direction or the other. Lots of little ways to fudge. You can bet they are picking up every single one of those opportunities to manipulate the data.
Climatologists only make money when they confirm the political agenda of the government bureacrats that fund them. Climatologists that come to the conclusion that we are not in a runaway AGW armageddon don’t get funding. They don’t get published. They don’t get tenured.
So yeah they are lying. Theres actually alot of evidence that the late middle ages had a warming period that was warmer than now. It all depends on how you interpret tree rings and theres fuckery to that as well. But prior to the last million years or so CO2 levels were much higher than they are now— like 2 to 4 times higher over the last 50 million years or so. Primitive Homos were evolving in conditions where CO2 was 2x as high as now, 1 - 3 million years ago. So those levels are hardly incompatible with human life, since human life was thriving then.
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 0 points 4 monthsDec 11, 2024 23:14:10 ago (+0/-0)
No. They have to explain why it’s true. That’s how these things work. Every single data recording station shows no change to temperature since 1880. They have absolutely nothing.
[ + ] scholarandrogue
[ - ] scholarandrogue 0 points 4 monthsDec 12, 2024 15:07:21 ago (+0/-0)
https://notrickszone.com/2024/11/27/research-103-of-302-weather-stations-united-kingdom-do-not-exist-at-all/
New Ocean Data Shakes Up Our Understanding of Climate Change
data erased from land temps 1900 to 1945 shown in sea temps
https://scitechdaily.com/new-ocean-data-shakes-up-our-understanding-of-climate-change/
pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08230-1
Antarctic Peninsula Greening Linked to Subglacial Heat, Not Climate Change
https://climatechangedispatch.com/antarctic-peninsula-greening-linked-to-subglacial-heat-not-climate-change/
Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica
New Study: Systematic Error In 1880-2020 Global Temperature Measurements Inflates Warming By 42%
https://notrickszone.com/2024/10/11/new-study-systematic-error-in-1880-2020-global-temperature-measurements-inflates-warming-by-42/
Systematic Error in Global Temperatures due to Weather Station Ageing
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Buesing-Weather-Station-Ageing-V4.2.pdf
A 485-million-year history of Earth’s surface temperature
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705
https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.adk3705
global mean surface temperature across the last 485 million years.
https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/science.adk3705/asset/8d762ca5-65f7-4691-9ef0-6ef25ea3f61f/assets/images/large/science.adk3705-fa.jpg
A new volcanic province: an inventory of subglacial volcanoes in West Antarctica [138 volcanos]
https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/full/10.1144/SP461.7
https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/epdf/10.1144/SP461.7
Global Warming? Under Sea Volcanoes The Axial Seamount Thousands More Like It Nature’s Response To 500 Years of Cooling
'100 % of the computer models developed to project climate change are missing 50% of the input heat from the earth’s core.'
https://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/axial-sea-mount.pdf
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 1 point 4 monthsDec 11, 2024 22:27:45 ago (+1/-0)
The bold part is the whole purpose of the article. Mankind contributes virtually nothing to "climate change".
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 1 point 4 monthsDec 12, 2024 01:15:55 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Zyklonbeekeeper
[ - ] Zyklonbeekeeper 1 point 4 monthsDec 12, 2024 03:53:29 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 1 point 4 monthsDec 12, 2024 06:32:54 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Sleazy
[ - ] Sleazy 3 points 4 monthsDec 11, 2024 22:19:44 ago (+3/-0)
they are on pavement now
they did not used to be
its a scam
fuck you
[ + ] Bassman9000
[ - ] Bassman9000 1 point 4 monthsDec 12, 2024 11:12:50 ago (+1/-0)
While they've also gotten rid of every tree in the area for "urban development".
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 5 points 4 monthsDec 11, 2024 22:43:40 ago (+5/-0)
What about places where they were recorded? Were they measuring temperature at the same precision in london in 1880 as they are today? No? Well, do you think they will analyze those temperatures in such a way that artificially reduces those old data points to slightly lower temperatures statistically? You can bet they will.
In fact, for decades of temperature records in the US, they actually revised recorded temperatures by shifting them downward to make temperature increases seem more dramatic. They used some flimsy statistical reasoning for doing this. But it was incredibly dishonest. They literally revised the temperatures on the books.
You can’t depend on them to perform data collection and analysis honestly. They will cherry pick their data sets or literally alter data in some cases. The real fuckery comes in the statistical analysis though. Most people think that data analysis is very straight forward. It isn’t . There are lots of ways to lie with statistics with out technically lying. I used to do it on the job. Its a dirty business. If I have a complex data set, and I understand it and you don’t, I can characterize that data in many different ways to tell whatever story I want. You don’t understand the system so you are none the wiser to my lies. There are a hundred little subjective decisions one has to make in such an analysis. Lots of little opportunities to push the trend one direction or the other. Lots of little ways to fudge. You can bet they are picking up every single one of those opportunities to manipulate the data.
Climatologists only make money when they confirm the political agenda of the government bureacrats that fund them. Climatologists that come to the conclusion that we are not in a runaway AGW armageddon don’t get funding. They don’t get published. They don’t get tenured.
So yeah they are lying. Theres actually alot of evidence that the late middle ages had a warming period that was warmer than now. It all depends on how you interpret tree rings and theres fuckery to that as well. But prior to the last million years or so CO2 levels were much higher than they are now— like 2 to 4 times higher over the last 50 million years or so. Primitive Homos were evolving in conditions where CO2 was 2x as high as now, 1 - 3 million years ago. So those levels are hardly incompatible with human life, since human life was thriving then.