Monthly Climate Fact Check

The “information” they are posting is about as valid as Faux’s Dominion claims. Time and time gain I have proven to you that the so called “science” is either cherry picked or Links back to some blog somewhere. What no one has ever proven is that scientists are changing outcomes for funding when it involves climate change however there is a ton of evidence they are changing for fossil fuel money

 

No, you have not proven anything even once, let alone "time and again."
Scientists' biases about outcomes are not driven by money. They are driven by their desire to protect their careers and reputations.

 

Okay - prove it! Prove that they are altering data
And yes I have proven your sites are trash and the articles are cherry picked twaddle written by people with no formal education in climate science and often with a history of being funded by fossil fuel industry interests

 

Let’s take this post as an example - Melb Muser has already shown the long history of funding from tobacco and fossil fuel interests so the site itself has a vested interests. In fact it has the sheer audacity to include other well known fossil fuel fronts and astroturf sites

Now the data - they include UAH data which has limited applicability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

then I came to a screeching halt with the site temperature.global as I cannot find who is behind it, what methodology they are using or who is subsequently citing the data because they seem to be at huge variance with other sites like NASA and Berkeley Earth

 

The welfare of humanity is The alibi of every tyrant.

Covid lockdowns would have been the envy of Hitler and this climate alarmism is every bit as bad as those.

The government's not going to save the world by dictating what sort of appliances you can use or what sort of vehicle you get down the road in.

I certainly don't know about you progressives but I don't wish to live in a world where the government micromanages every aspect of my existence like what I can set my thermostat at in my own home or telling me what sort of appliance is thou shalt not use.

I don't need big daddy government to do all of my thinking for me and keep me safe

 

Continuing from the post above

This is the “global temperature” from the site temperature.global (note there is no .gov or other identifying url)

this is Our world in data

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/temperature-anomaly


Global change.gov
https://www.globalchange.gov/indicators/global-surface-temperatures

Columbia University
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/

 

Continuing from above
The graph at your site


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows/

https://berkeleyearth.org/september-2023-temperature-update/

Anyone want to explain the disparity to this poor puzzled person

 

I have not said they are altering data. But their biases appear in data selection and interpretation.

 

UAH data are NASA satellite data.
The funding issue is irrelevant.

 

The first two of your examples are the same as Temperature.global. Just a different presentation. Your third is measured against a different mean.

 

The Hockey Stick is indeed fraud. Your other graphs include satellite data but are not really too far off Temperature.global.
FYI: I'm going in for some surgery this morning. Further replies may be delayed.

 

Okay - show how. I showed how your site is at huge variance with virtually every other dataset so please provide details

 

Did I say the uah dataset was influenced by funding? No I did not I sad it is not directly applicable to ground based temperatures.

 

And again no proof of your contention. And “my graphs” are nothing like temperature.global - which is governed by whom? Is it run by a university? A government? Who?

 

No, actually you did nothing of the sort.

 

If you read the legends on the graphs it's apparent.

 

Well please fill me in because from where I sir this looks to be a case of “lies damned lies and statistics” and I think the shell game relies on the word “deviation” and the fact it has cherry picked dates and only looked at data since 2016

 

Really? In what way does your chart look like the others? Does it have the same spread of information?

 

So your only enterprise is to derail a thread? Is that how you profess your denialism?

 

At some point, you folks need to all get on the same page. If you folks want to adopt drug decriminalization, why do you insist on still having on to wanting to ban something like smoking? Y'all dance jigs when pot smoking was decriminalized, but tobacco is a bridge too far for y'all? Laughable. But more to the point, since it seems, you cannot support your climate hysteria, you're going to submarine a thread because now you think tobacco is the topic... Strange how it never seems to be your ability to actually address the science here.

 

Why? We aren’t QANON conspiracists

If there is a logical fact in that post it is crying for loneliness

 

Merely a difference of presentation.

The claim being refuted is that September 2023 had unprecedented high temperature. The data presented go back to 2015 to refute that specific claim.

 

Deleted.

 

Here's an example.
Polar bear researchers hiding significant increase in Southern Hudson Bay numbers
Posted on October 16, 2023
Last December, researchers vigorously promoted a possible 27% decline in Western Hudson Bay (WH) polar bear abundance but kept hidden the fact that adjacent Southern Hudson Bay (SH) numbers increased by 30% over the same period.


And surprise, surprise: the bombshell SH results call into question everything the ‘experts’ have been saying about polar bears in Hudson Bay for years.

Continue reading →

 

Oh! Yeah! A real “shell game”. They are presenting a short time range and only plotting “deviations” from an arbitrary norm.
Plus it is sourced from a very odd website that seemingly has no “owner” and therefore no way of validation by external interests. If this was the basis for you to decide to sink money into a company would you do so?