Prof. Claims Global Warming Caused Nepal’s Earthquakes
So not only does global warming cause volcanoes, but it also caused the massive earthquake that rocked Nepal Saturday and killed thousands of people.
“It now appears that there exists a clear relationship between the global warming and earthquakes and other under earth activities,” writes Dr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava, an assistant professor at India’s Kanpur University.
Srivastava argues that when permafrost melts in the Arctic “and associated areas due to the increased global temperature, it is quite likely that the under located areas of the earth are affected due to alteration in the pressure on the earth crust.” He adds that when “water level on the seas and oceans increase due to the increased water quantity caused by the global warming, impact on the inside zones of earth can cause many tremors.” ... more
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/27/prof-claims-global-warming-caused-nepals-earthquakes/
Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 128. (Read 636455 times)
EPA Spends $84,000 To Study Churches That Preach Climate Change…
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is spending $84,000 to study how churches can be used to combat climate change.
A taxpayer-funded graduate fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is examining 17 faith-based institutions that have implemented “sustainability initiatives” in the hopes of developing workshops to teach pastors and other religious leaders how to change the behaviors of their congregants.
“Climate change—which affects traditional faith-based efforts to improve human health, mitigate poverty and redress social inequity—is inspiring religious organizations to advocate for clean air and water, restore ecosystems, and conserve resources,” a grant for the project, which began last fall, states. “This project seeks to understand the empirical experiences of faith-based environmental efforts within communities.”
“Through what motivations and processes do congregation level sustainability initiatives emerge?” the grant asks. “What factors facilitate and/or hinder implementation of these initiatives? What environmental and community outcomes are perceived to have been achieved through these initiatives?”
http://freebeacon.com/issues/epa-spends-84000-to-study-churches-that-preach-climate-change/
freakin protestants.
The E.P.A. Is a Protestant church?
no but i already see pastors (ie. protestants) urging a Halleluia for GW.
halleluiaaaa brother, save teh planet! and fill up that basket..
#1939
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10937002
....
Actually, when you have all the data at hand, forecasting is quite elementary.
....
Actually, when you have all the data at hand, forecasting is quite elementary.
....
Forecasting is quite elementary?
Let me ask something.
Why exactly do you think a "global temperature", which is what your chart depicts, actually exists?
EPA Spends $84,000 To Study Churches That Preach Climate Change…
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is spending $84,000 to study how churches can be used to combat climate change.
A taxpayer-funded graduate fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is examining 17 faith-based institutions that have implemented “sustainability initiatives” in the hopes of developing workshops to teach pastors and other religious leaders how to change the behaviors of their congregants.
“Climate change—which affects traditional faith-based efforts to improve human health, mitigate poverty and redress social inequity—is inspiring religious organizations to advocate for clean air and water, restore ecosystems, and conserve resources,” a grant for the project, which began last fall, states. “This project seeks to understand the empirical experiences of faith-based environmental efforts within communities.”
“Through what motivations and processes do congregation level sustainability initiatives emerge?” the grant asks. “What factors facilitate and/or hinder implementation of these initiatives? What environmental and community outcomes are perceived to have been achieved through these initiatives?”
http://freebeacon.com/issues/epa-spends-84000-to-study-churches-that-preach-climate-change/
freakin protestants.
The E.P.A. Is a Protestant church?
no but i already see pastors (ie. protestants) urging a Halleluia for GW.
halleluiaaaa brother, save teh planet! and fill up that basket..
...
Actually, when you have all the data at hand, forecasting is quite elementary.
Actually, when you have all the data at hand, forecasting is quite elementary.
Unfortunately when the data is cooked one can draw no valid inferences from it no matter what the truth happens to be. That's why the destruction of science in order to promote political perogatives is so pernicious.
- snipped: re-hashed chicken-little crap of the same nature that I've been hearing for the last 44-ish years since I learned the English language.
Among the mayor’s plans to deal with the potential crisis:
$335 million flood protection system for the Lower East Side.
$100 million worth of shoreline upgrades in Coney Island,
Staten Island’s south shore and other coastal neighborhoods.
Coating building roofs with reflective paint to absorb less heat, in a program that aims to convert 1 million square feet of surface area each year.
Armored levees in Staten Island’s Midland Beach and east shore, and dunes in Breezy Point, Queens.
4.15 million cubic yards of sand added to city beaches.
Make his buddies rich.
$100 million worth of shoreline upgrades in Coney Island,
Staten Island’s south shore and other coastal neighborhoods.
Coating building roofs with reflective paint to absorb less heat, in a program that aims to convert 1 million square feet of surface area each year.
Armored levees in Staten Island’s Midland Beach and east shore, and dunes in Breezy Point, Queens.
4.15 million cubic yards of sand added to city beaches.
Make his buddies rich.
FIFY
My plan for those New Yorkers who are all fritzed out: Move.
....
De Blasio administration officials were
...... salivating greedily over ways to tax the dumb, ignorant sheeple, devising promises to cut the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. Drumming fear into them, convincing them that Big Gov needed to protect neighborhoods from the extreme weather that could be unstoppable. They thought of casting themselves as courageous seers of the future -De Blasio administration officials were
The sea level in the city has already risen by a foot over the last century, a faster increase than the rest of the world, the researchers found. And temperatures have gone up 3.4 degrees.
“The projections we’re hearing about today assume that we don’t act,” said Dan Zarrilli, director of the Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency. “The good news here is that we as a city are continuing to act.”
Among the mayor’s plans to dole out money to his cronies -
$335 million flood protection system for the Lower East Side insuring the big drug kingpins' major trafficing areas are in good shape, it's you know, like we have to protect the flood of money coming from the flood of drugs with what else? Just a good flood protection scheme.
$100 million worth of shoreline upgrades in Coney Island. Hey it'll pay some union wages, even if the kids are playing video games at home all the time, and don't want to get ripped off on the rides and sideshows. In fact, we'll raise the prices on the rides and shit.
Staten Island’s south shore and other coastal neighborhoods, handled exclusively by a set aside contract for Elizabeth Warren's adviser, with half the funds to be channeled to her vote-for-the-bitch campaign. But hey, we gotta do what we gotta do, and we were told from above.
Thousands of union inspectors, program managers, and recent Democratic graduates to proselytize coating building roofs with reflective paint to absorb less heat, in a program that aims to convert 1 million square feet of surface area each year. So, we'll put the squeeze on them, see. Tell them to hire our special company for these here special roof jobs. Cuz they p-ro-tect this here environment. Hey, chump. Yeah, it's pricey. But you wants to be with us in saving this planet. Right, Chumpy?
Putting unemployed Longshoremen to work, if the union halls paid off like slot machines, building armored levees in Staten Island’s Midland Beach and east shore, and dunes in Breezy Point, Queens.
Giving De Blasio's second cousin's wife's fake company (pretty hot babe there, and she...) lots of cash, supposedfly for 4.15 million cubic yards of sand added to city beaches. Actually they can just pull it from one beach and move it a mile down, over and over. Nobody'll notice. They're all stupid.
Take 5 minutes and learn the difference between science and popular opinion.
97.1% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.
Actually, when you have all the data at hand, forecasting is quite elementary.
A report by the New York City Panel on Climate Change predicts that average temperatures could jump nearly 9 degrees, rainfall could increase 13% and sea levels would increase by over two feet, meaning the daily high tides in places like Queens would cause daily flooding.
The city's future could be rainy, hot — and underwater.
In a new report issued Tuesday, scientists painted a picture that could be even more frightening than the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. Climate change could hit New York with higher temperatures, dramatically rising sea levels, more rainfall and flooding, they said.
Temperatures are expected to jump 4.1 to 5.7 degrees by the 2050s — and by the 2080s, it could be 8.8 degrees hotter than the current average of 54 degrees, according to the study by the New York City Panel on Climate Change, a group of leading scientists assembled by the city.
By mid-century, the city could get five to seven heat waves a year compared to two currently, and the number of days over 90 degrees could double. The mercury is expected to crack 100 three to five days a year, compared to less than once every year.
“We expect temperatures to increase, precipitation likely to go up as well, and an acceleration of sea level rise,” said Radley Horton, a Columbia University scientist and panel member. “Sea level rise alone is going to increase the flood risk.”
Sea levels will increase 11 to 21 inches by the 2050s, 18 to 39 inches by the 2080s, and 22 to 50 inches by 2100, the group warned. And in the worst case scenario, the jump will be more than 6 feet if climate change goes unchecked.
Higher sea levels will mean more floods like the inundation brought by Sandy. The flood zone is expected to double in size by 2100, covering 99 square miles of the city.
And if the worst sea-level increases come true, the massive floods that are now anticipated every 100 years could happen every eight years.
Queens will be the most at risk for floods, followed by Brooklyn. In parts of southeast Queens, daily high tides could cause floods.
Precipitation is expected to rise gradually by year as well, increaing by as much as 13% by the 2080s.
STAN HONDA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Precipitation is expected to rise gradually by year as well, increaing by as much as 13% by the 2080s.
The city is also in for more rain — with precipitation expected to increase 4% to 11% by the 2050s and up to 13% by the 2080s, on top of the current 50.1 inches a year. And the city will get more frequent downpours and more intense hurricanes.
De Blasio administration officials said they’re working to cut the city’s greenhouse gas emissions, and to protect neighborhoods from the extreme weather that could be unstoppable.
The sea level in the city has already risen by a foot over the last century, a faster increase than the rest of the world, the researchers found. And temperatures have gone up 3.4 degrees.
“The projections we’re hearing about today assume that we don’t act,” said Dan Zarrilli, director of the Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency. “The good news here is that we as a city are continuing to act.”
Among the mayor’s plans to deal with the potential crisis:
$335 million flood protection system for the Lower East Side.
$100 million worth of shoreline upgrades in Coney Island,
Staten Island’s south shore and other coastal neighborhoods.
Coating building roofs with reflective paint to absorb less heat, in a program that aims to convert 1 million square feet of surface area each year.
Armored levees in Staten Island’s Midland Beach and east shore, and dunes in Breezy Point, Queens.
4.15 million cubic yards of sand added to city beaches.
Climate science is as much science as is Economics.
Climate science is nothing like economics. Climate science is hard data analysis, economics is borderline fucking religious in practice. You don't hear climate scientists identifying themselves by sect, such as "austrian" or "keynesian". 97.1% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.
the changing climate cannot be traced back to a single specific cause let alone forecast the future.
Actually, when you have all the data at hand, forecasting is quite elementary.
A report by the New York City Panel on Climate Change predicts that average temperatures could jump nearly 9 degrees, rainfall could increase 13% and sea levels would increase by over two feet, meaning the daily high tides in places like Queens would cause daily flooding.
The city's future could be rainy, hot — and underwater.
In a new report issued Tuesday, scientists painted a picture that could be even more frightening than the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. Climate change could hit New York with higher temperatures, dramatically rising sea levels, more rainfall and flooding, they said.
Temperatures are expected to jump 4.1 to 5.7 degrees by the 2050s — and by the 2080s, it could be 8.8 degrees hotter than the current average of 54 degrees, according to the study by the New York City Panel on Climate Change, a group of leading scientists assembled by the city.
By mid-century, the city could get five to seven heat waves a year compared to two currently, and the number of days over 90 degrees could double. The mercury is expected to crack 100 three to five days a year, compared to less than once every year.
“We expect temperatures to increase, precipitation likely to go up as well, and an acceleration of sea level rise,” said Radley Horton, a Columbia University scientist and panel member. “Sea level rise alone is going to increase the flood risk.”
Sea levels will increase 11 to 21 inches by the 2050s, 18 to 39 inches by the 2080s, and 22 to 50 inches by 2100, the group warned. And in the worst case scenario, the jump will be more than 6 feet if climate change goes unchecked.
Higher sea levels will mean more floods like the inundation brought by Sandy. The flood zone is expected to double in size by 2100, covering 99 square miles of the city.
And if the worst sea-level increases come true, the massive floods that are now anticipated every 100 years could happen every eight years.
Queens will be the most at risk for floods, followed by Brooklyn. In parts of southeast Queens, daily high tides could cause floods.
Precipitation is expected to rise gradually by year as well, increaing by as much as 13% by the 2080s.
STAN HONDA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Precipitation is expected to rise gradually by year as well, increaing by as much as 13% by the 2080s.
The city is also in for more rain — with precipitation expected to increase 4% to 11% by the 2050s and up to 13% by the 2080s, on top of the current 50.1 inches a year. And the city will get more frequent downpours and more intense hurricanes.
De Blasio administration officials said they’re working to cut the city’s greenhouse gas emissions, and to protect neighborhoods from the extreme weather that could be unstoppable.
The sea level in the city has already risen by a foot over the last century, a faster increase than the rest of the world, the researchers found. And temperatures have gone up 3.4 degrees.
“The projections we’re hearing about today assume that we don’t act,” said Dan Zarrilli, director of the Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency. “The good news here is that we as a city are continuing to act.”
Among the mayor’s plans to deal with the potential crisis:
$335 million flood protection system for the Lower East Side.
$100 million worth of shoreline upgrades in Coney Island,
Staten Island’s south shore and other coastal neighborhoods.
Coating building roofs with reflective paint to absorb less heat, in a program that aims to convert 1 million square feet of surface area each year.
Armored levees in Staten Island’s Midland Beach and east shore, and dunes in Breezy Point, Queens.
4.15 million cubic yards of sand added to city beaches.
Climate science is as much science as is Economics. Much like Economics, where all kinds of inputs and influences that affect the economy can be measured and charted, nonetheless it is difficult to get Economists to agree on the causes for economic activity and to accurately predict the future, the changing climate cannot be traced back to a single specific cause let alone forecast the future. Pinning climate change on human activity and trying to predict the future is a leap of faith, not science. "Climate science" is an oxymoron.
EPA Spends $84,000 To Study Churches That Preach Climate Change…
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is spending $84,000 to study how churches can be used to combat climate change.
A taxpayer-funded graduate fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is examining 17 faith-based institutions that have implemented “sustainability initiatives” in the hopes of developing workshops to teach pastors and other religious leaders how to change the behaviors of their congregants.
“Climate change—which affects traditional faith-based efforts to improve human health, mitigate poverty and redress social inequity—is inspiring religious organizations to advocate for clean air and water, restore ecosystems, and conserve resources,” a grant for the project, which began last fall, states. “This project seeks to understand the empirical experiences of faith-based environmental efforts within communities.”
“Through what motivations and processes do congregation level sustainability initiatives emerge?” the grant asks. “What factors facilitate and/or hinder implementation of these initiatives? What environmental and community outcomes are perceived to have been achieved through these initiatives?”
http://freebeacon.com/issues/epa-spends-84000-to-study-churches-that-preach-climate-change/
freakin protestants.
The E.P.A. Is a Protestant church?
EPA Spends $84,000 To Study Churches That Preach Climate Change…
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is spending $84,000 to study how churches can be used to combat climate change.
A taxpayer-funded graduate fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is examining 17 faith-based institutions that have implemented “sustainability initiatives” in the hopes of developing workshops to teach pastors and other religious leaders how to change the behaviors of their congregants.
“Climate change—which affects traditional faith-based efforts to improve human health, mitigate poverty and redress social inequity—is inspiring religious organizations to advocate for clean air and water, restore ecosystems, and conserve resources,” a grant for the project, which began last fall, states. “This project seeks to understand the empirical experiences of faith-based environmental efforts within communities.”
“Through what motivations and processes do congregation level sustainability initiatives emerge?” the grant asks. “What factors facilitate and/or hinder implementation of these initiatives? What environmental and community outcomes are perceived to have been achieved through these initiatives?”
http://freebeacon.com/issues/epa-spends-84000-to-study-churches-that-preach-climate-change/
freakin protestants.
EPA Spends $84,000 To Study Churches That Preach Climate Change…
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is spending $84,000 to study how churches can be used to combat climate change.
A taxpayer-funded graduate fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is examining 17 faith-based institutions that have implemented “sustainability initiatives” in the hopes of developing workshops to teach pastors and other religious leaders how to change the behaviors of their congregants.
“Climate change—which affects traditional faith-based efforts to improve human health, mitigate poverty and redress social inequity—is inspiring religious organizations to advocate for clean air and water, restore ecosystems, and conserve resources,” a grant for the project, which began last fall, states. “This project seeks to understand the empirical experiences of faith-based environmental efforts within communities.”
“Through what motivations and processes do congregation level sustainability initiatives emerge?” the grant asks. “What factors facilitate and/or hinder implementation of these initiatives? What environmental and community outcomes are perceived to have been achieved through these initiatives?”
http://freebeacon.com/issues/epa-spends-84000-to-study-churches-that-preach-climate-change/
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. .....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html
I heard this is accomplished by fiddling the numbers for the mid 1930s, making them colder.The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. .....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html
When I first read Orwell's 'He who controls the present controls the past; he who controls the past controls the future.' years ago it didn't make that much of an impression on me. Of course 1984 was so full of such impressive observations that each had to fight for attention. As the years go by this statement's ranking drifts ever higher for me. If they pull off the multi-trillion dollar heist ridding on the back of this 'homogenized' data it will really be very indicative the power of this information control observation of Orwell's.
Maybe it´s just a scam too far. People are way fed up by endless war scams, terror scams. Scams there, scams everywhere perpetrated and promoted by psychopathic crap. Almost nobody takes the mass media seriously anymore and as for politicians and scientists and others on the state´s teat - forget it.
Yeah, but look at the number of dollars in this scam. We are talking trillions. Maybe it´s just a scam too far. People are way fed up by endless war scams, terror scams. Scams there, scams everywhere perpetrated and promoted by psychopathic crap. Almost nobody takes the mass media seriously anymore and as for politicians and scientists and others on the state´s teat - forget it.
Can't forget. That scam is created for better population control by green-planet-loving-flying-in-private-jet-6-out-of-7-days-a-week actors... Like Bill "Air Force 1" Nye...
Maybe it´s just a scam too far. People are way fed up by endless war scams, terror scams. Scams there, scams everywhere perpetrated and promoted by psychopathic crap. Almost nobody takes the mass media seriously anymore and as for politicians and scientists and others on the state´s teat - forget it.
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. .....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html
I heard this is accomplished by fiddling the numbers for the mid 1930s, making them colder. The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. .....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. .....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html
\The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. .....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html
Yep. Yet the people asking for more data to corroborate are called deniers, true believers in the AGW "science" going for the pope for support...
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. .....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. .....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html
Jump to: