Climate Fraud Going Into Overdrive

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
I've always been skeptical of the government's declarations of man-made climate change and how some activity of man will end life-as-we-know-it.
Especially since their predictions never pan out.

Now NOAA is further corrupting our weather record to support new powers for the federal government.

One of my "fellow travelers" in skepticism is a gent by the name of Tony Heller, a geologist, electrical engineer, teacher and lifelong environmentalist who has a serious problem with the government-backed scam of human-caused climate change.

When I was going to high school, the government and media were trying to drum up a panic about The Coming Ice Age.
The problem was that there was no way to instill guilt and raise money from this racket (even though the cooling was happening and continues to this day), so they abandoned this approach and decided to go with Man-Made Global Warming.
So the various scientific branches of the governments began "correcting" the weather records of the past and tampering with the way that new data is added to support their new scam.

The problem with this new scam is that the predictions that were based on this corrupted data were laughable. An ice-free Arctic, rising sea levels, increasing wildfires, increasing extreme weather and other panic-inspiring nonsense.

Personally, I believe in living lightly upon the land, conserving natural resources and respecting all of the life forms that share this planet with us - even when we have to kill those life forms in order to survive.

I want to do the right things - but I want to do them for the right reasons

I don't want to live in fear or panic because of lies that are told by those that are supposed to be our leaders.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Climate is always changing. That's normal. Instead of chasing some idiotic notion of maintaining climate as is by manipulating something we know far too little about we should be expending our efforts and resources on just dealing with it.

The current climate is actually cooler than long-term average and was trending down. If near-term climate is warming due to human activity and if we take that away, who knows, we may just ending up accelerating the cooling trend into precipitating the next ice age.

Leave climate alone. It knows how to take care of itself.
 

Selena

Active member
Even if I believed man had a role in climate change the government has a long history of creating solutions that evolve into worse problems and isn't responsible enough to be giving the authority to act on the premise.
 

Howland937

Active member
Man, what a clueless lot.
The Weather Channel is solely responsible for the extreme weather we experience nowadays. I mean, how many snowstorms had names 10 years ago? How many hurricanes could you remember before the live coverage started? It's all about the network ratings. Gotta pay Jim Cantore's salary somehow.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Man, what a clueless lot.
The Weather Channel is solely responsible for the extreme weather we experience nowadays....
Ah, ha, ha hilarious!! And all the storm chasers. Without extreme weather they'd have to get jobs at Burger King. :LOL:

Seriously, extreme weather events are exactly how the climate balances itself. If we'd use our brains and our technology to cope with severe weather events instead of just relying on FEMA and the National Guard to go in and clean up afterwards then there'd be no climate change crisis.
 
You're not wrong.

They're already talking about lockdowns regarding "weather".

If the new bird flew or flew variants don't screw us you can rest assured the weather will.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Ah, ha, ha hilarious!! And all the storm chasers. Without extreme weather they'd have to get jobs at Burger King. :LOL:

Seriously, extreme weather events are exactly how the climate balances itself. If we'd use our brains and our technology to cope with severe weather events instead of just relying on FEMA and the National Guard to go in and clean up afterwards then there'd be no climate change crisis.

Balances itself? The weather/climate does not work that way.. If you look at long term (10,000 year+) climate data, you see big fluctuations that do not return to any 'average' temperature. Plus, there are long-term directional trends. The world is much cooler than it was, for example, 3 million years ago.

The climate question that faces us is: are we causing important changes in climate stability and temperature? If so, what are the implications for coastal cities, mid-west farmers, and others? And finally, is there any way to mitigate this?

This is a scientific question, largely, that should be addressed by people qualified to look at the data. It has been made political by people vested (emotionally or financially) in industries that stand to lose if we change our behaviors.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
You are correct, as far as you go.
The problem is that a large number of those qualified people are dependent upon s governmental or academic paycheck, which tends to affect their attitudes considering the data collected, its accuracy and its meaning.
They are "correcting" historical data to the point where entire historical periods are being erased, while current data is also being "corrected" until there is little resemblance to what we are actually experiencing
Amusingly, current weather predictions that are based on this corrupted data tends to make even same day predictions worthless... .
 

roscoe

Well-known member
You are correct, as far as you go.
The problem is that a large number of those qualified people are dependent upon s governmental or academic paycheck, which tends to affect their attitudes considering the data collected, its accuracy and its meaning.
They are "correcting" historical data to the point where entire historical periods are being erased, while current data is also being "corrected" until there is little resemblance to what we are actually experiencing
Amusingly, current weather predictions that are based on this corrupted data tends to make even same day predictions worthless... .

Well, the nice thing about science is that everything is explicit. Here is a good source for climate data, with a compiled list of data across the Holocene (12K years):

Here is a graph of the compiled data. the lines are the averages, and the 'shadows' are the 95% confidence intervals for the data. Notice that the right end of the red line exceeds any pattern that could reasonably be inferred from the longer term data pattern. This suggests a recent and dramatic shift that cannot be attributed to the overall longer-term swings.

Lesser climate shifts have, in the past, caused widespread famines, societal collapses, and wildlife extinctions. So, the stakes are big.

1623187186457.png


If you want to zoom in on the 2000 year data:

1623193844160.png
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Amusingly, current weather predictions that are based on this corrupted data tends to make even same day predictions worthless... .

This is because of chaos theory. You can't predict weather beyond a certain window because there are too many interacting parts.
 

Howland937

Active member
Only subscribe to Pastcast®
It correctly postcasts the weather up to 2 weeks previously. And it's nearly free, with ads.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Balances itself? The weather/climate does not work that way.. If you look at long term (10,000 year+) climate data, you see big fluctuations that do not return to any 'average' temperature. Plus, there are long-term directional trends. The world is much cooler than it was, for example, 3 million years ago.

The climate question that faces us is: are we causing important changes in climate stability and temperature? If so, what are the implications for coastal cities, mid-west farmers, and others? And finally, is there any way to mitigate this?

This is a scientific question, largely, that should be addressed by people qualified to look at the data. It has been made political by people vested (emotionally or financially) in industries that stand to lose if we change our behaviors.
The terms "balance" and "average" are largely misunderstood and therefore misused. Average is simply the sum of observations divided by the count of observations. A new observation produces a new average. There is no such scientitic principle as a "normal" average and therefore no "return to the average". Thus "balance" and "average" don't equate in terms of data. What I mean by "balance" is that climate trends don't continue forever - they reverse and begin trending in the other direction. Are human activities affecting the current trend? Probably. Are they significant? It hasn't been proven. Solar activity as a contributor to climatic trend is certainly a whole lot more significant. And that itself runs in trends that we don't completely understand as well. How about wild fires and volcanoes? Significance unknown. So why do climate trends reverse? Any other factors? Sure: the climate itself. The earth itself. Take the example of warmer temperatures melting polar ice. Where does all this water go? Directly into the ocean to produce rising sea levels? In the first place, ice takes up more volume than water. But, it mostly just evaporates - a heat transfer process - and it goes into the atmosphere to produce more high-level clouds that filter the sunlight and also reduce the heat produced by the sun. Then a lot of it precipitates out over land, another process that involves heat transfer. Take another example of carbon dioxide. Higher CO2 levels stimulate plant growth, and the plants suck up the excess CO2, storing the carbon and releasing the oxygen. There are all kinds of balancing mechanisms we don't understand. As geological data show we are at present cooler than average and the atmosphere has less CO2 than average. Human activity to screw around with balancing mechanisms we don't understand and are way too macro to be manipulated anyway is just plain stupid. We might end up producing a totally unexpected result, or we might end up expending enormous resources that do nothing.
 
Last edited:

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
Well, the nice thing about science is that everything is explicit. Here is a good source for climate data, with a compiled list of data across the Holocene (12K years):

Here is a graph of the compiled data. the lines are the averages, and the 'shadows' are the 95% confidence intervals for the data. Notice that the right end of the red line exceeds any pattern that could reasonably be inferred from the longer term data pattern. This suggests a recent and dramatic shift that cannot be attributed to the overall longer-term swings.

Lesser climate shifts have, in the past, caused widespread famines, societal collapses, and wildlife extinctions. So, the stakes are big.

View attachment 1503

If you want to zoom in on the 2000 year data:

View attachment 1507
A perfect example.
Compare this graph to any graph of the period up to the year 2000 provided by our government from more than ten years ago.
Then compare the uncorrected temperature graphs of the last century to the "corrected" ones of the same periods.
-And I love the excuses that they give for their "corrections"... .
 

roscoe

Well-known member
A perfect example.
Compare this graph to any graph of the period up to the year 2000 provided by our government from more than ten years ago.
Then compare the uncorrected temperature graphs of the last century to the "corrected" ones of the same periods.
-And I love the excuses that they give for their "corrections"... .

Do you have an example?

But notice that they show calibrated and uncalibrated data, specifically so that if you have technical issues with their methods, you can see the alternative. That is science - being explicit and testable.

Not that switching between the data sets would have any impact on the conclusions about climate change - that red line is far outside any of the error margins of any of the data sets.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
The terms "balance" and "average" are largely misunderstood and therefore misused. Average is simply the sum of observations divided by the count of observations. A new observation produces a new average. There is no such scientitic principle as a "normal" average and therefore no "return to the average". Thus "balance" and "average" don't equate in terms of data. What I mean by "balance" is that climate trends don't continue forever - they reverse and begin trending in the other direction. Are human activities affecting the current trend? Probably. Are they significant? It hasn't been proven. Solar activity as a contributor to climatic trend is certainly a whole lot more significant. And that itself runs in trends that we don't completely understand as well. How about wild fires and volcanoes? Significance unknown. So why do climate trends reverse? Any other factors? Sure: the climate itself. The earth itself. Take the example of warmer temperatures melting polar ice. Where does all this water go? Directly into the ocean to produce rising sea levels? In the first place, ice takes up more volume than water. But, it mostly just evaporates - a heat transfer process - and it goes into the atmosphere to produce more high-level clouds that filter the sunlight and also reduce the heat produced by the sun. Then a lot of it precipitates out over land, another process that involves heat transfer. Take another example of carbon dioxide. Higher CO2 levels stimulate plant growth, and the plants suck up the excess CO2, storing the carbon and releasing the oxygen. There are all kinds of balancing mechanisms we don't understand. As geological data show we are at present cooler than average and the atmosphere has less CO2 than average. Human activity to screw around with balancing mechanisms we don't understand and are way too macro to be manipulated anyway is just plain stupid. We might end up producing a totally unexpected result, or we might end up expending enormous resources that do nothing.

It is true that results in a chaotic system, which the climate certainly is, are inherently unpredictable. However, since we know what the climate was like over a fairly long time period previous to the massive introduction of greenhouse gasses, it is not unreasonable to infer that the reduction of such gasses is likely to help turn climate change around, or at least forestall further change. That is especially the case since the mechanisms are fairly well understood. We are not talking abut anything other than just cutting back on air pollution.

It is always possible that nothing we could do could help. But the problem with that is the stakes. If the hockey-stick trajectory continues, it will have a major impact on life on Earth.

Imagine you are making a bet - let's say it is a 50-50 question. If you win (and climate change is not real), some folks (in oil and coal) will have have acquired different jobs for no reason. But, if you lose, (and climate change is real), and you did nothing to mitigate it, then tens of millions are displaced from coastal cities, tens or hundreds of millions die from drought-caused famine in the 3rd world, and we have massive international political instability. It is like betting on a roulette wheel where you stand to win $100, or lose your house, car, and retirement. The stakes are so big if you lose that it is far smarter not to play at all.

One of the problems with this issue is that it is the marshmallow test writ large. You are telling people in West Virginia to give up their coal jobs now so that their grandchildren won't live in a politically unstable drought-ridden future. Humans (as are most animals) are very bad at making sacrifices for the future, which is why things like massive credit-card debt are so prevalent, and obesity rates are high in societies that get wealthy, and alcohol and drug abuse are so common world-wide.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
BTW - I work with some of these data sets, so if anyone wants the raw data to play with, I probably can figure out how to make it available here somehow. I have data back to 5 million years ago, at varying intervals. But you can also just look up the sources of my data - Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005, for the 5 million year isotope data. My graph above is from Excel, and that is usually how the datasets are formatted.
 
Last edited:
Top