Climate Fraud Going Into Overdrive

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
The corrections are often imposed retroactively based on reasons that include the times of day that the data is recorded, changes in the physical environment of the recording station, changes in the devices that are used for the recordings, discrepancies between regional stations, discrepancies between new and pre-existing stations, and a number of other reasons. Some of these reasons are valid or partly valid, but most of these changes appear to have been imposed to fit theories and policies that are sent down by management-level officials.

The corrections become obvious when you compare temperature, precipitation, wildfire, or other graphs that were created in the past with those that were created recently.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
The corrections are often imposed retroactively based on reasons that include the times of day that the data is recorded, changes in the physical environment of the recording station, changes in the devices that are used for the recordings, discrepancies between regional stations, discrepancies between new and pre-existing stations, and a number of other reasons. Some of these reasons are valid or partly valid, but most of these changes appear to have been imposed to fit theories and policies that are sent down by management-level officials.

The corrections become obvious when you compare temperature, precipitation, wildfire, or other graphs that were created in the past with those that were created recently.

Those all sound like legit reasons to me. I would need to see evidence that 'management' has been imposing these changes. Since this kind of data is collected by, literally, thousands of different scientists across dozens of international agencies, it is tough to imagine how this could be done.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
I'll give you an example.
When I worked for the Department of Space Management at the University of Alabama I was assigned to classify and update the drawings of a weather station that was on campus. It had originally been established over a century ago on a hill overlooking the Black Warrior River, surrounded by trees and grass.
When I inspected it, the station was in the middle of an asphalt parking lot, surrounded by multi-story brick buildings.
The site was hot and airless.
I mentioned this to the person that was taking readings and she said that this was taken into account in the past records.
It seemed that the past records were almost identical with current readings in spite of the changes in the environment, which was assumed to be impossible. The judgement was that the old instruments had apparently been faulty and the past records had been adjusted downward to match this judgement.
Oddly enough, most of the original instruments were still in use, as far as I could tell.

This is not an uncommon occurrence.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Except that the odds really aren't 50/50: the earth and its climate have a very long history of winning. Mankind not so much. I'll put my bet on the earth and its climate.
It is not a question of whether the Earth will win. It has been through much worse, and will persist. It doesn't care about us. Just ask any dinosaur. We are the ones who will lose if we screw this up.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
... Just ask any dinosaur. We are the ones who will lose if we screw this up.
We're smarter than dinosaurs. We don't have to lose. We know how to cope by adapting. If we make that the top priority, not some quixotic quest to reverse climate change.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
-The dinosaurs didn't screw up.
The universe screwed the dinosaurs.
If we faced the series of meteor strikes and volcanic eruptions that did in the dinosaurs (and most of the rest of life on earth) we'd be just as screwed... .
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
The universe screwed the dinosaurs.
Well, technically, God screwed the dinosaurs, but then, as technically, He promised not to do that again, so, regardless of any argument @roscoe is likely to accept, or not, I think for near term planning purposes, we can disregard those sorts of singular events, and instead concentrate on coping with incremental changes that, over the very long term, self-regulate.
 

doubleh

Member
For some reason I have trouble relying on long term predictions from scientists that can't even predict the weather accurately for three days in advance. Argue all you want but man is a tiny drop in the ocean of things that affect the weather. Mother Nature always wins. Meanwhile we as a nation are wringing our hands and bound and determined to reduce our carbon "footprint" while other countries give it lip service or totally ignore it.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
I just can't take it seriously that folks are panicking over the 00.04% of CO2 in our atmosphere when there were times when our atmosphere held over 30% CO2 and there was life on earth.
Not animal life, of course... .
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
We could actually use a little more carbon dioxide, what with all the forests being harvested for timber and paper. More CO2 would spur more and faster plant growth. More plant grow would produce a cooling effect. Mother Nature does know what she's doing.
 

Selena

Active member
It is not a question of whether the Earth will win. It has been through much worse, and will persist. It doesn't care about us. Just ask any dinosaur. We are the ones who will lose if we screw this up.

Mankind will either adapt or become extinct. Considering we have specimens that need warning labels that coffee may be hot and plastic bags are a suffocation hazard I question whether extinction is a bad thing.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Mankind will either adapt or become extinct. Considering we have specimens that need warning labels that coffee may be hot and plastic bags are a suffocation hazard I question whether extinction is a bad thing.

Well, if that is the attitude, then I guess ignoring the problem is OK. The world has had big die-offs of the human population before - 3 million years ago, 1 million years ago, 70,000 years ago, among other lesser environmentally-driven genetic bottlenecks and famines, like 1452-53.

My main problem is that it is the poor who will suffer the most, first. Drought, land loss, flooding etc. always hit the poorest the most. Rich folks can afford to helicopter up to their mountain lairs. The poor will die like flies if famines hit hard. The US has the technology, wealth, and military power to take what they need, but 3/5 or more of the world does not have the infrastructure or wealth to survive big ecological problems.

Comparison - the US is the most vaccinated country in the world, but in Africa, where I work, almost no one is vaccinated, and won't be for 18 months at least. The US didn't do anything wrong, but the rest of the world just does not have the resources to deal with big problems. So they will continue to die from COVID. No one's fault, really, but there it is. And if the climate causes major weather-related issues, the same pattern of rich/poor will follow.
 
Last edited:

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
Meanwhile, we're about to go into a Grand Solar Minimum, which is likely to tip us into another mini Ice Age like the one that ended about 250 years ago.

The Global Warming Panic Children will not be pleased... .
 

Selena

Active member
Well, if that is the attitude, then I guess ignoring the problem is OK. The world has had big die-offs of the human population before - 3 million years ago, 1 million years ago, 70,000 years ago, among other lesser environmentally-driven genetic bottlenecks and famines, like 1452-53.

My main problem is that it is the poor who will suffer the most, first. Drought, land loss, flooding etc. always hit the poorest the most. Rich folks can afford to helicopter up to their mountain lairs. The poor will die like flies if famines hit hard. The US has the technology, wealth, and military power to take what they need, but 3/5 or more of the world does not have the infrastructure or wealth to survive big ecological problems.

Comparison - the US is the most vaccinated country in the world, but in Africa, where I work, almost no one is vaccinated, and won't be for 18 months at least. The US didn't do anything wrong, but the rest of the world just does not have the resources to deal with big problems. So they will continue to die from COVID. No one's fault, really, but there it is. And if the climate causes major weather-related issues, the same pattern of rich/poor will follow.
Ah yes, poor Africa where slash and burn agriculture is still practiced and socialist violence is the rule of the day. My late uncle used to tell of the "poor" he "encountered" on a coffee farm in Rhodesia. From what I heard most of their misery is self-inflicted.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Ah yes, poor Africa where slash and burn agriculture is still practiced and socialist violence is the rule of the day. My late uncle used to tell of the "poor" he "encountered" on a coffee farm in Rhodesia. From what I heard most of their misery is self-inflicted.

Ahh. So they deserve it.

That is some ugly sentiment. I assume you have never been. Nor studied the history.
 
Top