• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise

Here's the link to the PSMSL Aden data
Data and Station Information for ADEN

44_high.png


What NOAA did was lower the 1879-1893 section of the data:

Yemen NOAA.jpg

There were other changes, but that's mainly where the nearly
2 mm/yr increase is generated.

That the PSMSL data was changed is a matter of fact, why it
was changed is a matter of opinion.
 
Phys251 said:
Breitbart.com :lol: :roll:
Click to expand...
graeme104 said:
How to discredit yourself 101
Click to expand...
The Breitbart story is true, the data was changed.

Glen Contrarian said:
...Every nation on the planet is fooled, too - 'cept for 'Murica...and only the 'Murican ... the uneducated and the willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...
My father-in-law flew photo recon over the Iwo Jima invasion.
The photo below might have been taken from the plane he piloted.

fig15.jpg


He was from Minnesota farm country and had the rural accent
that you seem to relish making fun of. Smarmy liberals like
you really do piss me off.
 
MrWonka said:
From your own article.....

"So there is nothing per se wrong with PSMSL making adjustments in order to make the different datasets align."

"In Aden, for example, the alarmists have turned a modest 1.21 mm/year rise into a 3.02 mm/year rise."

So, first, your own article has to admit that there has in fact been a rise in the sea level even if it's not as big as what's been reporting. It also fully admits that there's nothing necessarily wrong with adjusting this data they just don't seem to fully understand why. In otherwords the sea levels are definately rising, and the scientists who study them seem to think it's even worse than their initial measurements indicate even though a bunch of science illerate skeptics don't seem to understand why.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that 3mm/yr is a foot per century?
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL. That journal isn’t science either, and is regularly discredited.

The author is a retired automotive engineer, and has no experience in oceanography.

But the deniers will swallow it while anyway, while they dismiss the Royal Academy because they ‘don’t know science’.

Jeez.

Energy and Environment (Journal) | DeSmogBlog


Page not found | DeSmogBlog
Click to expand...

If someone spots an error in something, that is a real error, does it really matter who found the error?
 
longview said:
If someone spots an error in something, that is a real error, does it really matter who found the error?
Click to expand...

When they publish it in a trash journal, and the author is an ex automotive engineer with a sketchy history, most people would see red flags.

You only see red flags when actual respected scientific organizations publish things.
 
Threegoofs said:
When they publish it in a trash journal, and the author is an ex automotive engineer with a sketchy history, most people would see red flags.

You only see red flags when actual respected scientific organizations publish things.
Click to expand...

Shooting the messenger does not change the fact that the data has been changed.
 
Steve Case said:
Shooting the messenger does not change the fact that the data has been changed.
Click to expand...

The choice of messenger virtually guarantees that the issue is bull****.
It’s why I don’t bother to seriously consider the patient care merits of articles published by retired accountants in the Journal of Homeopathy.
 
Surface Detail said:
The dogma that data adjustment is some sort of nefarious plot by scientists to deceive regular folk rather than a necessary step to extract meaning from data certainly seems to be a common right-wing delusion.
Click to expand...

Surface Detail said:
If you're an AGW denier who is keen to publish mathematically flawed propaganda, then yes, the existence of alternative journals with negligible peer review is fantastic. For science in general it's not so great.
Click to expand...

Thank you for providing a fine example of unthinking prejudice and why there is so little faith in AGW orthodoxy.
 
Jack Hays said:
Thank you for providing a fine example of unthinking prejudice and why there is so little faith in AGW orthodoxy.
Click to expand...

It is true that I rate evidence-based research published in established journals by experts in the field more highly than unsubstantiated blog posts and articles published in pop-up journals by unknowns in the field. Similarly, I rate the advice of my doctor on medical issues more highly than that of random strangers, and I trust my plumber to be able to fix my pipes better than someone who doesn't know one end of a wrench from the other.

You can call this prejudice if you like; most of us call it common sense.
 
Surface Detail said:
It is true that I rate evidence-based research published in established journals by experts in the field more highly than unsubstantiated blog posts and articles published in pop-up journals by unknowns in the field. Similarly, I rate the advice of my doctor on medical issues more highly than that of random strangers, and I trust my plumber to be able to fix my pipes better than someone who doesn't know one end of a wrench from the other.

You can call this prejudice if you like; most of us call it common sense.
Click to expand...

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
 
Jack Hays said:
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Click to expand...

Individual doctors and plumbers have been known to behave less than perfectly too.
Should I therefore stop relying on the services of doctors and plumbers?
 
Surface Detail said:
Individual doctors and plumbers have been known to behave less than perfectly too.
Should I therefore stop relying on the services of doctors and plumbers?
Click to expand...

Clearly, the actions of a few can always used to judge the many.
 
Surface Detail said:
Individual doctors and plumbers have been known to behave less than perfectly too.
Should I therefore stop relying on the services of doctors and plumbers?
Click to expand...

You should stop acting like the advocates of AGW orthodoxy occupy any sort of scientific high ground.
 
Jack Hays said:
You should stop acting like the advocates of AGW orthodoxy occupy any sort of scientific high ground.
Click to expand...

But on the whole, they do.

With very few exceptions, the advocates of the AGW consensus are far more highly qualified in the field of climatology, have done far more research in the area, and have published far more papers on the topic than their detractors.
 
Speaking of data adjustments . . . .

Alarmism
[h=1]Claim: Adding Fudge Factors Makes Climate Models Scarier[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Willie Soon – Climate models do a poor job of reproducing observed climate. But climate scientists seem to think they can produce more accurate projections by adding fudge factors to their models, to force better agreement between models and observations. The most accurate climate change models predict the most…
 
Jack Hays said:
You should stop acting like the advocates of AGW orthodoxy occupy any sort of scientific high ground.
Click to expand...

Well, they do seem to occupy the membership of both the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, along with a hundred more respected organizations.

That’s pretty much the ‘scientific high ground’...
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, they do seem to occupy the membership of both the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, along with a hundred more respected organizations.

That’s pretty much the ‘scientific high ground’...
Click to expand...

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
 
Jack Hays said:
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Click to expand...

I guess when you got nuthin’, you just rehash unrelated posts.
 
Jack Hays said:
You seem to have missed the point.
Click to expand...

You seem to be continually missing the point, as you trumpet your fringe scientists and their connections to respected scientific organizations, but dismiss the organizations when they don’t say what you want them to say.
 
In other breaking news AIDS IS KILLING OFF AMERICAS VAMPIRES.

.
National enquierer...
Breitbart. Funny :)
 
Tim the plumber said:
Do you understand that 3mm/yr is a foot per century?
Click to expand...

Do you understand how big the ocean is? How much water would need to be added to it in order to cause the entirety of our oceans to swell by that much?

The biggest fear of climate change isn't just rising water levels it's what will happen to the overall climate of the earth once the polar ice caps melt entirely. The caps have a radical effect on the overall temperature of the oceans and the planet not to mention the flow of the current.

Try putting a large chunk of ice in a glass of water and let it sit outside on a hot day with a thermometer in it. You'll see that so long as there is at least some ice in the water, the temperature of the water will remain close to 32 degrees farenheit, but as soon as the last piece of ice melts entirely the tempurature of the water will spike significantly in a very short period of time.

For the Ocean levels around the earth to be rising at even 1 mm/yr an incredible amount of ice has to be melting into them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom