See Here
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
Which leads me to wonder yet again, if the evidence is really so overwhelming, why do they feel compelled to exaggerate, mislead and outright lie about it?
“Which leads me to wonder yet again, if the evidence is really so overwhelming, why do they feel compelled to exaggerate, mislead and outright lie about it?”
Why? Because all of us deniers make it so hard for them to share the gospel of climate change. Remember Dan Rather’s “fake, but accurate” spin?
We are in Baghdad Bob territory now with “believers.”
Andrew
They probably don’t see themselves as lying. They say what they say for the good of the planet and inconvenient facts are not in the planet’s best interests. So those facts are squelched or windowdressed. nd t people who bring them up are basket cases anyway.
Oh they know they are lying, some rationalize, but most just want to keep their jobs. Now the true lay believe is a true believer. Now that the political climate has changed, I would look for the hysterics to be stopped in their tracks – yes the media will still keep pushing stories, but eventually, it will just be a little echo chamber that dies with a whimper as years come and go. And like so many incredibly embarrassing chapters in our history, it will just fade away, nobody will be held accountable for all the wasted treasure, our children’s inheritance. But US Science may be unsalvageable if big money is not removed, somehow – or our focus will become sharp again, and science will bring new technologies of energy and information to truely help the poorest and most vulnerable among us, and not kill them off.
Perhaps they have been studying evolution and understand how it works, take an observation, run it through your belief system and the answer that pops out is a fact. Then demand everyone believes you and any one who doesn’t is a denier of science.
Of related note:
No, more like the Daily Mail is caught lying (again). You really shouldn’t rely on a shoddy tabloid like the Mail to give a fair and accurate account of the controversy. If anyone is actually interested in a different perspective, you should look here.
No one is relying on the Mail.
Andrew
It’s looking like another case of Argument by Moral Evaluation:
Premise: Lying is bad.
Premise: We’re not bad people.
Conclusion: Therefore, what we said wasn’t a lie.
Global warming alarmists want to take draconian measures to shut down industry so as to avert a supposed impending climate catastrophe. The presupposition behind their desire is the belief that industry is ‘unnatural’ and that by eliminating, or severely curtailing, industry it will restore the earth to its ‘natural balance’. Implicit in this assumption is the belief that it is ‘unnatural’ for man to build industries.
Yet, when looking at the evidence objectively, we find that the earth was prepared in advance, i.e. ‘terraformed’ for billions of years, for a technologically advanced civilization to appear, and that man is gifted, apart from all other creatures on earth, with a unique ability to ‘master the planet’ by infusing information into the proper material substrates in order to create industry, as well as to create all other manner of other tools for his benefit and pleasure.
None of this makes any sense on atheistic materialism and, in fact, this line of evidence directly undermines the hidden atheistic assumption behind the global warming hysteria. i.e. the hidden assumption that man, and particularly the technologically advanced civilization that he enjoys and benefits greatly from, was unintended and is therefore ‘unnatural’ and should be all but eliminated.
Notes to that effect:
Thus basically, the atheistic belief behind the global warming hysteria, i.e. the belief that man, or more particularly the technologically advanced civilization of man, is ‘unnatural’ and therefore should be eliminated for the good of the world so as to avert global catastrophe is a fallacious belief that has no evidential basis in reality.
Having no actual basis for their beliefs is not really all that surprising since all other atheistic claims also suffer the same fate when faced with the actual scientific evidence.
The scientific evidence itself clearly indicates that man, and his technologically advanced civilization, were indeed intended, and prepared for, by God.
Verse:
The only truly global temperature measurements are from weather satellites in polar orbits.
Dr. Judith Curry, a former AGW believer now turned skeptic, posted an article on her website in Dec. 2015 which includes an interesting graph.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_dec8.jpg
The red line represents what the average of 104 IPCC* computer generated climate models was predicting or forecasting.
The blue and green lines represent actual data from actual global measurements. The blue is balloon data. The green is satellite data. The real data does show some global warming (the sceptics DO NOT DENY this) however it does not show the runaway, catastrophic warming the alarmists are predicting with their models. Who is being more rational here? The alarmists who cling to their predictions even though they have been proven wrong time and time again by real world data? Or those who analyse the real data to reach a tentative conclusion?
Here is the full article:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/
footnote: *The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
There are so many things wrong with climate science, to present any of it without qualifying it as speculation, is to lie about it.
We can go to the concept of climate itself, if someone needs a starting place in evaluating what going on:
What is climate and how is it scientifically determined/identified?
Andrew
Andrew:
“We are in Baghdad Bob territory now with ‘believers.'”
Seversky confirms this observation at 7. Sev is the Captain Renault of the climate controversy.
“I’m shocked, shocked to find out that after they massaged the numbers the temps went up. You know it really could have gone either way.”
Can you say “Piltdown Man”?
Also,
Some people think the graphs that make the headlines are temperature graphs.
No. They are data “products”. They are graphical representations of analyses of adjusted temperature data.
And there’s a problem with the concept of “adjusted temperature data”. When you post hoc change the value of data, is it still data?
Andrew
Seversky lives in his own little world.
Pav: “Can you say “Piltdown Man”?”
To be fair, wasn’t it the evolutionists who identified the fact that Piltdown was a hoax?
#15 Asauber,
confirming your remarks about Data Products.
Below link to article and charts of Software output in 3 states: CA, MI, and ME.
Note interesting discussion on conservation of original DATA in 4th comment down by TC in the OC.
It is well known adjustments are made due to change over time. With Urban Heat Island growth in cities, highways, concrete jungles and populations.
The debate is how accurate, trustworthy are these adjustments? Good reason for a healthy skepticism of what is cause among different variables.
After ClimateGate lies, manipulation and propaganda being exposed, there’s no wonder people become suspicious. Does not help IPCC predictions were wrong.
“In each state, zero or very slight warming was converted to pronounced warming.”
From new software installs, upgrades, etc….
NOAA Software Spins the AGW game
Oh Dear,
Wikipedia has ‘Banned’ the Daily Mail as a source for information about, well, anything.
Wikipedia notes the Daily Mail’s poor history of sourcing facts, and fact checking facts. Kind of like UD I suppose.
What really hurts is that Wikipedia still allows information from Russia Today, and Fox News, just not the Daily Mail.
My advice to UD is to follow this ban, and abide by its findings. If you do publish findings from this egregious news organisation it could, might, possibly, reflect poorly upon your own talent for finding pertinent information defending the ID position: Just a thought, up to you!
Apparently you can still link to the, ‘Daily’, just not referance it as a reliable source; ‘reliable source’. Heh:) Kind of like saying, ‘I got my science from Klinghoffer.’
RVB8, Wikipedia, on political correctness tinged subjects has long since lost all credibility. It is notorious for hack jobs and even outright slander as well as for the destructive agenda driven pattern of editing including resistance to correction and good sources. We have no good reason to regard Wikipedia’s notions or behaviours as any guidelines whatsoever. Regardless of our views of Daily Mail, which also has its problems. For that matter, BBC, as well as any number of major media which in our time have spectacularly failed, willfully in many cases, in their duties of care to truth, fairness, responsibility. And, the rise of evolutionary materialism with its inherent amorality and undermining of responsible, rational freedom is a big part of the problem. One, which you would do well to address. KF
Larry Sanger, Co-founder of Wikipedia, Agrees That it Does not Follow its Own Neutrality Policy. – December 1, 2016
Excerpt: Mr. Sanger posted an article today about media bias in which he alluded to the neutrality policy he drafted.
I replied (see the combox of the article):“Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.” I’ve been reading Wikipedia articles for years, and from the evidence I would not have thought such a thing exists, or, if it does, the name is somewhat misleading, because the policy would read something like: “On all matters cultural and political, Wikipedia will endeavor to crush conservative viewpoints. Neutrality will not be tolerated.” Just read the post on, for example, intelligent design theory. It is written by the theory’s antagonists, and all efforts to correct the post to reflect the real theory, as opposed to the straw man caricature presented by its opponents, are ruthlessly suppressed.”
In a response Mr. Sanger stated:
“For the record, I agree with this. Wikipedia doesn’t live up to its policy and in fact deliberately misinterprets it on some issues. Although I founded Wikipedia, I’m also long gone from the organization and am now probably its biggest critic, so…”
There you go folks. We ain’t making it up. The co-founder of Wiki agrees with us.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ty-policy/
Even Wikipedia itself says that Wikipedia is not a credible source for information due to the fact ‘anyone can edit the information given at any time’ i.e. censorship by trolls:
Wikipedia: Academic use
Excerpt: Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2]
This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ademic_use
There has been an overall world-wide politicization and corruption of the media. This is especially evident with the so-called 24/7 news outlets like CNN and MSNBC. What is behind the corruption? Money. The problem is there isn’t always enough interesting news for a 24/7 news cycle. How do you pay super star level salaries (recently a former Fox News’ prime time star turned down a 20+ million dollar annual salary to go to work for NBC) and make a profit unless you draw an audience? You have to make the news interesting, push an agenda or even make up some news.
Money also corrupts “climate science.” Governments are pouring billions of dollars into climate science to come up with a preordained result– mankind is causing climate change/ global warming. Dr. Judith Curry’s premature (forced?) retirement is but one example of this kind of corruption.
Of course there is nothing new here. The apostle Paul warned early Christians: “The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine [the truth]. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim. 4:3)
Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU
Former CBS Reporter and Media Professional exposes the mind manipulation used by special interest groups, media, wikipedia, and medical.
And I suspect if you asked random believer on the street to explain what climate change is, they wouldn’t be able to.
Global Warming/Climate Change is a religion of the ignorant.
Andrew
Whether or not the Daily Mail is the best journalistic source, if the following is true then it does not reflect well on NOAA’s so-called research on man caused climate change.
http://www.foxnews.com/science.....arges.html
So-called tabloids do sometimes scoop the mainstream media. For example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02670.html
As it turned out the National Enquirer had done some top notch journalism on the story.
The bottom line is that it is the facts– the evidence– which matter the most, not the source. Indeed, it is fallacious to dismiss a story or testimony, out of hand, because of the source. In logic this type of reasoning is known as the genetic fallacy.
BA77, though some tabloids are notorious, we must remember that — strictly — it is a half broadsheet printing format. Of course in former days it was strongly associated with sensationalism and shoddiness, but that is not necessarily the case. For instance, I recently had occasion to see the Times of London (inventors of Times New Roman), and saw they had gone tabloid format. The proper approach is to look for indicators of spin [or worse, gaslighting] and pushing a narrative vs commitment to truth and fairness in the sound interests of the public. Far too many media houses are now failing this test and many are playing street theatre narrative pushing destructive agenda games through working to enable astroturf/front group using agit prop operations. KF
PS: And yes, National Enquirer has in several cases done absolutely sterling work.
PPS: Thanks for the reminder on Ms Atkisson’s TED talk.
Darwins_downfall:
To be fair, wasn’t it the evolutionists who identified the fact that Piltdown was a hoax?
From the History Channel:
By the time of Dawson and Woodward’s historic announcement, the search for a missing link to prove Darwin’s still-controversial theory had grown intense.
I suspect that it is going to be skeptical climate scientists who will prove that “global warming” is the biggest hoax mankind has ever seen.
But that doesn’t take anything away from the fact that scientists will “find” what they’re looking for. And what are they “looking for”? Something, even made-up, that validates their “ideas”. Humankind’s ego can be immense.
PaV: “
Isn’t calling it a hoax, in itself, an observational bias that leads to an expected conclusion? But if you are saying that if AGM is disproven that it will be climate scientists who will prove this, then I agree with you.
I agree that scientists can be biased by what they think is true. This is true for everyone. Scientist, theist, atheist, politician, etc.. But science isn’t about developing a theory and then sticking to it regardless of the residence like most religions do. Theories are modified or overthrown as the result of evidence and testing. Evolution is no different. It has been modified many times since Darwin.
Darwins_downfall, which is an interesting name for a Darwinian troll to take, states:
Much like DD’s handle, there is much that is misleading in DD’s statement.
Contrary to what DD believes. or what he is trying to falsely propagate, Darwinian evolution is very much a pseudo-scientific religion.
But first before we get into that, let us be VERY clear that all of science, every discipline within science, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Modern science was born, and continues to be dependent on, those basic Theistic presuppositions:
Moreover, if we cast aside those basic Theistic presuppositions of the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and try to use Atheistic Materialism, i.e. methodological naturalism, as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practicing science, then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.
To reiterate, it would be hard to fathom a worldview that is more antagonistic to modern science than Darwinian evolution, and Atheistic naturalism in general, have turned out to be.
Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and of our minds to comprehend it.
In fact, Darwin’s book, ‘Origin’, instead of being based on math and experimental evidence, is replete with bad liberal theology. Which should not really be all that surprising since Darwin’s college degree was in (liberal) theology and not in math,, (in fact Darwin found math to be ‘repugnant’):
To this day, since Darwinists have no empirical evidence that their theory is remotely feasible, Darwinists are still very much dependent on bad liberal theology in order to try to establish the supposedly ‘scientific’ legitimacy of Darwinian claims:
But the fact that Darwinian evolution is a just (bad liberal) religion masquerading as science is not what makes it a pseudo-science. What makes Darwinian evolution a pseudo-science is that it has, among other failings, no falsification criteria.
Whereas Darwinists simply do not let any observation or empirical testing falsify their theory, the theory of Intelligent Design very much subjects itself to testing and potential falsification.
Thus, if Darwinists were truly concerned about keeping pseudo-scientific religion out of science classes then they would demand their own theory be removed from science classes.
But alas, as Darwin’s theological treatise ‘Origin’ makes clear, it never was about the science for Darwinists in the first place. it was about establishing the supposed scientific legitimacy of their atheistic desires.,,, Darwin, and his modern day followers, have failed big time in their quest to make atheism ‘scientific’!
Verse: