Global warmed up: Study finds temperature data systematically fudged upward

[mschmoyer]

LOL, so snopes admits the global cooling was reported in the seventies. But because this pic was photoshopped its, false.

well I am convinced............reading is hard.

Perhaps it's hard to read to the bottom:

This article, and much of the media coverage in its vein, overstated the level of scientific concern regarding on global cooling and its effects from that time period, a point graciously conceded by the author of the 1975 Newsweek article in a 2014 story he wrote for Inside Science:

Here I must admit mea culpa. In retrospect, I was over-enthusiastic in parts of my Newsweek article. Thus, I suggested a connection between the purported global cooling and increases in tornado activity that was unjustified by climate science. I also predicted a forthcoming impact of global cooling on the world’s food production that had scant research to back it.

[AnthonyS]

The fact that science is now being used as a social construct isn't just disturbing; it's downright Orwellian.

[noshine4mine]

Perhaps it's hard to read to the bottom:

LOL, you just did it again. So in the 70's its gloom and doom and now the person says oh maybe I was too zealous back then.


That does not change the fact it was reported, and now that none of it happened, they can all say "oh im sorry". How long do I have to wait for the retraction of global warming?


Point is, you sited Snopes saying the meme pic was false, and proceed to imply Cooling wasn't reported in the 70, even though the article says it was reported in the 70's. And the next update was 40 years later.

You were talking about credibilty.

So was it reported in the 70's or not?

[AnthonyS]

Read several ice age of doom articles from the 70s. One did appear in time in 77 but the covers were simpler more like cartoons then.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/23/120-years-of-climate-scares-70s-ice-age-scare/

[cyclonescott]

I copied this from yellowbullet.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017...trial-century/

..... snip ....

Now, Dr. Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann committed contempt of court in what is being dubbed the “climate science trial of the century”. Dr. Mann defied the judge presiding over the case and refused to surrender his data for “open court examination”.

Principia Scientific noted the following:

“Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.”
79-year-old Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball is the defendant in the libel trial and is expected to tell his attorneys to “trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud”.

The defeat of Dr. Mann will only vindicate President Donald Trump in his claims that climate change is a hoax. The graph below from Principia Scientific shows “Mann’s cherry-picked version of science [that] makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ’tick’ in the late 20th century” – this is the blade of Mann’s now infamous “hockey stick”.

Below Mann’s graph is Ball’s, which uses much more reliable and easily attainable public data, which accurately shows a significantly warmer MWP with temperatures that are drastically hotter than the modern day’s.

..... more snip .... read it here, graphs, etc. ... liars figure but figures don't lie

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017...trial-century/

...... but wait, there's more ......

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...hael_mann.html

July 7, 2017
Things Get Hot for Michael Mann

By Timothy Birdnow
Michael Mann has stepped into a methane-emitting cowpile.

Mann is the Penn State climatologist famous for inventing the "hockey stick" graph promoting the notion that planetary temperatures spiked in the 20th century after a Golden Age of stasis. This graph was misleading at a minimum, the product of what Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia termed "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline." What Mann did was splice two separate data sets together to create the illusion of spiking temperatures; the graph spliced data sets together without differentiation, hiding the global temperature "decline" shown by the Briffa reconstruction set.

Mann would use a number of statistical tricks to do away with the Medieval Warming Period, an embarrassment to the warm-mongers. He would hide data that disagreed with a sudden spike in temperature. Mann was the lead author of the IPCC Third Assessment Report chapter “Observed Climate Variability and Change” and his hockey stick was very influential in making governmental and international policy. Millions of dollars were affected by it.

Mann had the misfortune of being mentioned by name in the leaked CRU e-mails and so was caught. Not that he hadn't his detractors before; Ross McKitrick and Steve Macintyre eviscerated him in 2003, for example. Despite being caught red-handed (or is it green-handed in this case?) Mann continued to defend his work rather than go quietly into that good night.

He did even worse; he launched a campaign of punitive lawsuits against anyone who criticized him. He has sued Mark Steyn, National Review Online, and climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball.

Mann shot himself in the foot with that last. For several years, Mann had refused to produce his data for the court (in support of his own case), claiming that it was “proprietary.” After missing a February 20th deadline, he now finds himself in contempt. Under Canadian law, the court is now required to dismiss the suit.

John O'Sullivan goes into detail:
"The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball… is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

[...]

"Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’

As first reported in Principia Scientific International (February 1, 2017), the defendant in the case, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, had won “concessions” against Mann, but at the time the details were kept confidential, pending Mann’s response.

The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called ‘climate deniers’ like President Donald Trump and his EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt."

[cyclonescott]

I copied this from yellowbullet.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017...trial-century/

..... snip ....

Now, Dr. Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann committed contempt of court in what is being dubbed the “climate science trial of the century”. Dr. Mann defied the judge presiding over the case and refused to surrender his data for “open court examination”.

Principia Scientific noted the following:

“Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.”
79-year-old Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball is the defendant in the libel trial and is expected to tell his attorneys to “trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud”.

The defeat of Dr. Mann will only vindicate President Donald Trump in his claims that climate change is a hoax. The graph below from Principia Scientific shows “Mann’s cherry-picked version of science [that] makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ’tick’ in the late 20th century” – this is the blade of Mann’s now infamous “hockey stick”.

Below Mann’s graph is Ball’s, which uses much more reliable and easily attainable public data, which accurately shows a significantly warmer MWP with temperatures that are drastically hotter than the modern day’s.

..... more snip .... read it here, graphs, etc. ... liars figure but figures don't lie

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017...trial-century/

...... but wait, there's more ......

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...hael_mann.html

July 7, 2017
Things Get Hot for Michael Mann

By Timothy Birdnow
Michael Mann has stepped into a methane-emitting cowpile.

Mann is the Penn State climatologist famous for inventing the "hockey stick" graph promoting the notion that planetary temperatures spiked in the 20th century after a Golden Age of stasis. This graph was misleading at a minimum, the product of what Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia termed "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline." What Mann did was splice two separate data sets together to create the illusion of spiking temperatures; the graph spliced data sets together without differentiation, hiding the global temperature "decline" shown by the Briffa reconstruction set.

Mann would use a number of statistical tricks to do away with the Medieval Warming Period, an embarrassment to the warm-mongers. He would hide data that disagreed with a sudden spike in temperature. Mann was the lead author of the IPCC Third Assessment Report chapter “Observed Climate Variability and Change” and his hockey stick was very influential in making governmental and international policy. Millions of dollars were affected by it.

Mann had the misfortune of being mentioned by name in the leaked CRU e-mails and so was caught. Not that he hadn't his detractors before; Ross McKitrick and Steve Macintyre eviscerated him in 2003, for example. Despite being caught red-handed (or is it green-handed in this case?) Mann continued to defend his work rather than go quietly into that good night.

He did even worse; he launched a campaign of punitive lawsuits against anyone who criticized him. He has sued Mark Steyn, National Review Online, and climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball.

Mann shot himself in the foot with that last. For several years, Mann had refused to produce his data for the court (in support of his own case), claiming that it was “proprietary.” After missing a February 20th deadline, he now finds himself in contempt. Under Canadian law, the court is now required to dismiss the suit.

John O'Sullivan goes into detail:
"The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball… is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

[...]

"Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’

As first reported in Principia Scientific International (February 1, 2017), the defendant in the case, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, had won “concessions” against Mann, but at the time the details were kept confidential, pending Mann’s response.

The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called ‘climate deniers’ like President Donald Trump and his EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt."

[mschmoyer]

LOL, you just did it again. So in the 70's its gloom and doom and now the person says oh maybe I was too zealous back then.


That does not change the fact it was reported, and now that none of it happened, they can all say "oh im sorry". How long do I have to wait for the retraction of global warming?


Point is, you sited Snopes saying the meme pic was false, and proceed to imply Cooling wasn't reported in the 70, even though the article says it was reported in the 70's. And the next update was 40 years later.

You were talking about credibilty.

So was it reported in the 70's or not?

My point is you posted this meme with no commentary. That would leave me to assume you believe the contents are real and posted to share your view. It's fake, photoshopped, and discredited. Majority of scientists and facts did not support a "global cooling" and the scientist himself said so. So yes, it was reported on in the 70's by one magazine following a now-discredited scientist, but this only helps further support that facts, research, and citations matter...

Can you gleam any similarities to that article and the one the OP posted? No facts? No support by majority of scientists? Much more biased media "shock value" website?

[AnthonyS]

msch, there are about 100 or so articles in the last no I posted. I'm going to go way out on a limb and postulate they aren't all from one person or magazine. The only thing in this thread that sucks more than your argument is the ahole behind snopes, Soros.

[mschmoyer]

msch, there are about 100 or so articles in the last no I posted. I'm going to go way out on a limb and postulate they aren't all from one person or magazine. The only thing in this thread that sucks more than your argument is the ahole behind snopes, Soros.

I suppose it's hard to confirm or deny anything you say because all of your links are 404 errors or to the main page of another non-scientific biased media website where the owner & editors admit they are conservative on the About page. I have many conservative leanings but c'mon, I know better than to make my argument than with these websites...

This provides much more data. Feel free to click any of the 217 citations:

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

[AnthonyS]

Heaven forbid you actually remove your finger from your ass or stop diddling it ass to mouth and click a fucking link and read a few actual articles printed in the 70s. I'm sure all of these period newspaper and magazine articles were faked just for you.

I didn't say shit, I posted a link to a lot of period pieces on global cooling. Of course being another retard hipster douche like naynuts, I shouldn't expect you to understand the difference.

[threefortytwo]

You could say... That this thread is really...... heating up.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!

It's an old meme sir, but it checks out.

[Gargamel]

You could say... That this thread is really...... heating up.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!

It's an old meme sir, but it checks out.

[Gasser64]

Majority of scientists and facts did not support a "global cooling" and the scientist himself said so.

The problem is many these days do not support a "global warming". If they all did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Its hard to tell if any of this really matters, because if a new ice age does eventually happen, there isn't going to be any telling if its just natural, or if it was "caused by man" somehow. If they can't settle the matter now, they're definitely not going to be able to settle it if that happens.

So at this point its pretty clear that its just being used to further an agenda. If their only concern was simply getting pollution way down, we also wouldn't be having this conversation. But no, they want money. From us. That's where they've killed their argument.

[Broncojohnny]

The problem is many these days do not support a "global warming". If they all did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Its hard to tell if any of this really matters, because if a new ice age does eventually happen, there isn't going to be any telling if its just natural, or if it was "caused by man" somehow. If they can't settle the matter now, they're definitely not going to be able to settle it if that happens.

So at this point its pretty clear that its just being used to further an agenda. If their only concern was simply getting pollution way down, we also wouldn't be having this conversation. But no, they want money. From us. That's where they've killed their argument.

Even Gasser gets it.

[Trip McNeely]

But no, they want money. From us. That's where they've killed their argument.

Carbon Reparations