Climate Data Compromised: Ya’ Reckon?
69
Has Climate Data Been Compromised?
If it weren't serious, stories about climate data being compromised would be comical. The news is too good and I can’t help myself, but there is nothing funny about any of this.
Suspicions about the motive behind the green movement and observation of how the laws regarding it are being enacted create too many questions about why we have moved forward with so little information about the new green products being available to lawmakers and citizens.
The green theme is honestly not my favorite topic, however, when the news media puts it out there, what can a person do? They invite this on themselves, we can't just ignore the invitation, can we?
Research and Data Inventories on Global Weather, and the News on Compromised Climate Data
Yesterday, I saw a climate data news flash about how this January was the hottest January on record. One just sits there wondering about a lot of things while looking at the letters that form such articles. My first question was whether the listed author would use their real name or if they chickened out. I can say with all truthfulness that if I had to keep my job by writing such an article, I would use a pseudonym.
My next thought pertained to writing a hub on the ludicrousness of that news flash, what with the same news organization displaying flaming “East Coast Slammed With Snow Again” type articles on the same day. I mean, even if January was the hottest January in all history, how does it matter since this February has brought us such a volume of winter weather that the melting snow is going saturate the ground with freezing water for some time to come? Not very scientific, I know, but absurdity breeds ridiculousness.
Global Warming Lies
Dangers of Compact Bulbs
Anthony Watts Proves That Climate Data has been Compromised
Anyway, today I am compelled to write a green theme hub in spite of wanting to finish a book review. A man with a plan, Anthony Watts, has apparently been working with a group to find out how the scientific data for global warming records is being gathered. Compiling their own data, this group now has facts in the form of evaluations with photos and they have reported the results of their surveys.
This article reveals that out of the 1,062 weather stations they have investigated over the last 3 years “90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation.” To read that some of the weather stations are lighted with bulbs that could raise the temperatures that they report was eye-opening.
The article gives some interesting details on the proof of failed adherence to the guidelines, as well as a defense by researchers responsible for not following the governmental guidelines on how to do their global warming studies. Since they are set to soon publish a report on their findings in the Journal of Geophysics Research--Atmospheres their defense is not surprising.
I’m going to keep this short for a couple of reasons. First, you need to read up on this and get busy sharing the report. Second, I want to reread certain sections of my book so I can finish my review and figure out if I want to do several book review hubs. Third, I need to use my new energy efficient washing machine which I have yet to write a hub about.
In spite of the fact that Anthony Watts’ name could make one wonder if there is a conspiracy afoot, we have to admit that, pun intended, the wattage against so-called scientific data on global warming is being ramped up by people who are fed up. So here you have it, go now, do your part, spread the news facts on how climate data is compromised.
__________
This slide show just showed up, go here.
Mercury in CFLs
Relating A Quote from D. A. Carson to Compromised Climate Data:
"That God normally operates the universe consistently makes science possible; that He does not always do so ought to keep science humble."
Dirty Electricity
 | This is help for confusing times. Amazon Price: $6.90 List Price: $14.99 |
 | A wireless instrument for monitoring temperatures makes it easy to know what you want to know. Amazon Price: $19.95 |
 | Weather forecasting made easy. Amazon Price: $4.85 List Price: $8.95 |
 | A definitive guide to weather in the USA. Amazon Price: $19.99 List Price: $35.00 |
Saving Energy
|
Adapter US/EU/UK Plug 15KW Power Electricity Energy Saver Box Save 30%
Current Bid: $4.98
|
|
Adapter US/EU/UK Plug 15KW Power Electricity Energy Saver Box Save 30%
Current Bid: $4.98
|
|
Adapter US/EU/UK Plug 15KW Power Electricity Energy Saver Box Save 30%
Current Bid: $1.00
|
More on Compromised Climate Data and Related Issues
- Whole House Surge Protection
If you read my smoked turkey hubs you know that we just purchased new appliances. So far they work well and I do plan to write a hub specifically about them because they are classed as energy efficient. The... - Slow Death By Rubber Duck from Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie
These authors have documented their findings on harmful chemicals used in everyday products. This is a guide to what products contain. - Truth Quotes: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
Playing games with truth is the worst kind of Russian-roulette, yet the topic of truth is rarely even discussed. One of my favorite quotes, Truth invites scrutiny, error demands tolerance has inspired... - A Garden Project: Make A Teapot Planter
A stevia plant makes the perfect center for a teapot planter. These plants provide just the right amount of sweetener for steeping in teas.
- Where Have all the Light Bulbs Gone for the Easy Bake Oven?
Stock up on incandescant light bulbs if your child owns an Easy Bake Oven. Once these bulbs filter out of the market, you may not be able to replace them. - CFL "Eco" Lights: Are You Trading Your Health to Save a Buck?
Well-sourced article. CFL lights contain cancer-causing chemicals, can trigger breast cancer and seizures, emit UV radiation, and contain mercury. Learn more! - The Negative Side Effects Of Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs)
Compact fluorescent bulbs are a more efficient way to provide electrical light within homes and other buildings. These bulbs are one of the easiest ways to save money. Despite the benefits, CFLs have a number of negatives as well. Health problems, me - Going Green - Energy Saving Light-Bulbs - what you might not know!
Going green can have dangers that many are not aware of.
Confused About The Safety Of CFLs?
• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •
Join HubPages by
clicking here!
Start benefiting
from the
HubPages
community today!
• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •
What Do You Think About Compromised Climate Data?Loading...
Why aren't I surprised? The scientist that have disagreed about global warming were silenced all along and now we are finding out from the emails that people have definitely been dishonest. I think they should focus on clean water and not spend money wastefully until they have more evidence. I just got an energy efficient washer and dryer too. Oh well, I really do like them. Good hub
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I'll look for your hub on your washer and dryer!
I am scratching my head as well over people who think our winters are getting less and less cold. Honestly, I live in Kentucky, and we were AMBUSHED with snow (which is definitely not normal), so I get the feeling that something is definitely not adding up.
Great hub, I'm glad somebody wrote about this! :)
So much in the news re this issue would truly be funny if it weren't such a sad reflection of the insanity that thinking we know more than our Creator has brought this world to!
We need to look past headlines then listen and read the news with an ear for keywords, phrases, and sentences that tell the truth about "the news" so we can help others learn to think about what they read and hear rather than swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
Out of curiosity I've been perusing global climate system articles. Take this one, for instance:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8538060.
"As if" questions came to mind:
As if animals have not always adapted to changes in nature and found food other places.
As if natural geographic changes have not always created changes for marine life.
As if the new iceberg is going to be there permanently rather than slowly melt away just like others do.
After an alarming title and paragraphs of supposition the article ends a little more honestly:
However, the researchers say the changes to the region triggered by the formation of the new iceberg will not shut down the circulation system or affect the world's climate.
"Large icebergs always attract a lot of attention due to their scale," observed Dr Michael Meredith from the British Antarctic Survey, who was not involved in the research.
"Bottom water is indeed an important part of the global ocean overturning circulation and hence climate," he told BBC News.
"There are also a number of other locations of bottom water formation, however. So, it's unlikely that a large-scale sustained change of the order of magnitude required for a global climate impact will happen from this one event.
"The more important thing, I think, is that this event has been closely and carefully monitored by scientists, who will now look at the processes whereby such calvings can impact on the ocean and the ecosystem - and studying this natural laboratory will add to our knowledge of how the Antarctic system works."
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment to help keep the dialogue open mynameisnotpaul. Always good to cross paths with you!
It is funny (or not so funny) that most experts could not predict accurately tomorrow's weather, but they speculate about 40-50-60 years from now.
That gives me just as much confidence in their "expertise" as the 2012 apocalyptical theory about the end of the planet.
Even if it is true (which I doubt), can we do anything about it? It seems that X or Y always give as one more thing to worry about so we can't think or do what is really important and it is in our power to change
Experts can be very funny. So much of what we are witnesses to in this day and time is designed to take our minds off of what is really important. Thanks much for stopping in and leaving your comment.
Knowing what kinds of changes are being planned by those who are putting global warming at the top of their agenda is important. Check out:
One of the comments under this article had a novel idea that we should agree on--governments should be held responsible for creating a climate of fear:
You did a great job with this article. All of the global warming hype just makes me think of "ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. Thanks for writing this.
How apropos! Thank you for stopping by and leaving a comment, with a perfect quote no less! :)
Hello again RT,
Creating a climate of fear is what governments do best. Very interesting articles you found and post, thank you for the links
Thanks for the input, Petra, because it is invaluable coming from one with your experiences. Thanks for leaving a comment, too, for that helps keep the news articles highlighted and the dialogue open.
Two Thumbs Up......Glad to see not everybody is falling for the fear and hype.
Many thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment to help keep the dialogue high-lighted.
Al Gore has been unusually quiet. He must be off hunting for "Man Bear Pig" :)
:) Thanks for stopping by again and helping to keep the dialogue open.
From what I'm reading he's preparing a come back. "Their" latest excuses re the current winter's freezing temperatures proving global warming are an example of how science is ignored in order to try to make a point. The earth recycles the same amount of water through evaporation and precipitation. More water is not created by gasses of any kind. The earth's closed water recycling system makes for interesting conversation in the face "their" claims and excuses. Everyone agrees that it is wise to take care of the earth, our water, etc. but not everyone agrees that science should be based on facts!
One of my favorite quotes: Truth invites scrutiny; error demands tolerance.
You are all doing exactly what RTalloni said that we Believers in Climate Change are doing, swallowing the news that leans toward your 'preferred' reality "hook, line and sinker".
Also, where Petra mentions how "experts can't predict accurately tomorrow's weather, but they speculate about 40-50-60 years from now"..well there is a different between global temperature *trends* tracked (over long periods of time) to build a more reliable data base for comparison and means for prediction while the daily differences in the weather are so short term that there is, as of yet, no way to be completely sure from one day to another. Climate and weather are very different things.
And, the government isn't the one responsible for creating that "climate of fear" she speaks of, in fact they are only just recently (finally!) accepting the fact of climate change. Rather, the government has been very busy funding certain agencies and paying underpaid scientists the big bucks to deliver (manipulate?) the data that your side of the fence is so desperate to cling on to.
With global warming, the key is to not focus on what the media is spouting. No matter which way it may be skewed, what is being said it is not necessarily all truth. Both sides (mine and yours) have made some pretty misleading allegations. What is problematic is that the media is causing us to focus on the more recent changes in weather from year to year, much too short term. And I've often heard people (some from this very comment section included!) claiming that a huge snow discounts or record hot days in February supports this idea of climate change.
Instead of obsessing over the month to month or year to year changes in the weather, what everyone needs to focus on is the fact that we are pouring carbon dioxide into our atmosphere at a rates that far surpass anything that has ever been seen. This is the reason we are certain that global warming is real, CO2 directly increases atmospheric temperatures. CO2 is what is going to get us in trouble and we're increasing its load in the atmosphere daily at disgusting rates.
The idea of climate change is something the world has endured and survived for its entire existence. The clincher is that we are changing the climate at a rate that is 100,000 times faster than past fluctuations have ever done. So now how are we, much less the natural environment that relies on evolving over thousands and thousands of generations, expected to keep up?
I appreciate the opportunity to comment, particularly to be the first commenter on the opposite side of a very one-sided discussion. Please visit my hubpage as I intend to address this issue for the wider public in the near future.
First, thanks for stopping by and commenting. I try to always appreciate open discussions.
What you have to say is interesting for a lot of reasons. You might like to do some research on the truth about how carbon dioxide has been poured into "our" atmosphere via "natural" causes at incalculable rates for centuries, yet the earth was designed to clean itself up. (Case in point, the most recent gulf oil spill, where the efforts of man cannot take credit for the fact that the waters have recovered so quickly so well, against all cries that the end of the gulf coast was at hand.) That is not to say that earth was designed to replenish itself interminably, but that point is another issue entirely and it involves the truth about how the earth is not ours, but we are stewards--a very big responsibility that requires attention to the concerns you raise in your comments.
It is a good thing for us to stop and think about the big picture, as you point out is our need. If one is to believe that our natural environment relies on an ability to evolve over generations ad nauseam then reality insists that we admit that it is impossible to know what is purported as fact re the so- called stats from eons ago.
The words evolve and adapt have come to be and are now far too often used interchangeably, and that's not a wise. Doing so has helped people swallow a lie hook, line, and sinker. I'm a big advocate of examining true definitions and how people misuse words to promote agendas. One of my favorite quotes is, "Truth invites scrutiny, error demands tolerance." Defining scrutiny is the key to getting to the truth of a matter and that's basically what this hub was about.
One reason I write about this type of topic is to exercise how to put thinking skills into writing, another is to help others exercise their thinking skills. So much opportunity for problem solving is lost when we lose common-sense thinking. Practically thinking through what the concerns really are includes setting aside emotion where rhetoric is concerned, examining every facet of the related problems (not just those that fit an agenda we may have adopted), concentrating on how to solve the difficulties from a perspective of leadership on the matter (which includes being responsible enough to be honest and check and double-check "facts").
On the issue of climate change we have some excellent data that is being ignored in the debate. However, my perspective is that common-sensical, practical thinking could spare many of us much distress.
Oh it’s my pleasure to engage in this discussion, interplay like this is what keeps the world turning!
I appreciate the advice, but I am content with my research done on carbon dioxide that is (and has been) emitted into the atmosphere. I know very well that gases given off by various natural causes are the main source of the gas levels in the atmosphere and I also am very well aware that they are “checked and balanced” by natural absorption. As you say, the earth is “designed to clean itself up” but, unfortunately, not to the exceedingly fast rate (by earth’s standards) as we humans are soiling it as referred to with the statistics in my previous comment. Our emissions contribution may not be a huge proportion to that which the earth naturally emits, but that is not the focus. It’s that we are increasing the amount to a point “over the limit” that the earth cannot support. We have thrown the earth out of its balance.
You mention the oil spill as your case in point, but I see no evidence in the fact that while the ecosystem might naturally recover faster than we expected it to, to suggest that the earth as a whole is capable of keeping up and nullifying the overall human pollution contribution. Not to mention the fact that the ecosystem hit by the oil spill isn’t back in tip-top shape quiet yet. Furthermore, what we humans are doing to try and clean up the spill are hurting the ecosystem more than helping it, which is exactly our problem here on earth..we don’t consider (or even have the knowledge of) the consequences that our actions could have on the environment. And because of that the earth is changing.
I don’t see what the gulf spill has to do with the issue we are discussing but I feel the need for people to know that it was a bad thing and still is a bad thing. You can’t just introduce harmful chemicals and expect the earth to happily go about its own business. Sure, bacteria may be able to naturally bioremediate the damage, but (bigger picture once again) the bacteria wouldn’t have been there in such force if it weren’t for the unnatural introduction of the oil. The suddenly-high abundance of bacteria is therefore triggered unnaturally and is sure to have an impact. You can’t tug one part of the ecosystem and expect it not to reverberate.
Everything is connected and there will be responses that mere humans have no way of predicting that could end up hurting not only the earth but us as well.
On to the next point…so, this loaded sentence of yours gave me pause: “If one is to believe that our natural environment relies on an ability to evolve over generations ad nauseam then reality insists that we admit that it is impossible to know what is purported as fact re the so- called stats from eons ago.”
I believe that the environment doesn’t rely on the ability, but rather it is nature’s innate ability to evolve. The cause of evolution is how species with ‘chance’ genetic differences either are better adapted to their environment or not. Those not will die off and the better adapted will survive and procreate, creating progeny with that advantageous variation that is genetically passing through generations. “Ad nauseam” is simply an overstatement. I don’t know about you, but I happen to, along with countless others, have a lot of respect for scientists and what they “purport as fact” about eons ago. Why don’t you?
Furthermore, I am curious..did your loaded sentence mean that you disagree with my statement “..we are changing the climate at a rate that is 100,000 times faster than past fluctuations have ever done. So now how are we, much less the natural environment that relies on evolving over thousands and thousands of generations, expected to keep up?”? Because, if so, I also would like to know: why? Why don’t you think that we can use the information that scientists come up with (the credible ones, at least) as fact? Do you just not believe in evolution?
I liked your quote you stuck in after mentioning the misuse of evolve and adapt but I feel you strayed from your point there. I was hoping you would expand on that thought and tell what it is that you think is so unwise and what lie we are swallowing. Who is promoting what agenda here by confusing the terms so that we the public take it as face value? What are these “lies” doing and what do they have to do with global warming?
I love that you wrote this hub, it definitely is putting my thinking skills to use and, as I delve more deeply into the topic I am able to share my thoughts with someone who has very different thoughts and see where you are coming from. What I’m afraid of is that you take a lot of your own information at face value..like the parents who killed themselves and their children for fear of global warming. Do you really believe that the government is scaring us to that point? How many cases have you found like this? Obviously this is a very outlying case that really contributes nothing to your argument. In fact these people, who I’m sure were not hanging on every word the government said about global warming (the few words the gov’t even were saying!), doubtless they were looking into global warming on their own accord, reading the very sad facts that have been stated for years now (and neglected to be addressed by the government) and their mental state, which already was obviously precarious, was pushed over the edge.
I just ask you to not get hung up on whatever error Al Gore may have made. He is not a scientist. He could very well have an agenda and maybe that is what is steering him in the wrong direction. Politicians are renowned for adapting information to their advantage. You keep referring to basically a lack of common sense thinking. Well, I have seen an abundance of it.
“So much opportunity for problem solving is lost when we lose common-sense thinking.” I am in complete agreement. Unfortunately, no matter which “side” people are on, mistakes are going to be made and common sense will fall by the wayside. Nonetheless, I think we should put a lot of confidence in science. A scientific approach is the most common-sense thinking of all.
Thanks for coming by again. I’m always glad to see comments and to have the chance to interact with other hubbers.
I appreciate your concerns about “over the limit” emissions, even though your comment that you are content with your research gives me pause for thought. It brought to mind what 1950s scientists said about antibiotics. For all the lives that antibiotics have saved, how wrong could they have been to assure the world that their research proved that antibiotics would eradicate disease?
The gulf has and continues to recover faster than anyone expected. Common sense does suggest that this fact could mean that the earth’s other systems should respond in a similar manner when necessary. Yet, there is no doubt that we have a responsibility to be wise in addressing problems that develop for we have been given stewardship of the earth.
You make a good point in writing that what is done to solve problems is sometimes more harmful than helpful. We need common sense thinking on every level--scientifically, politically, and among “just us.” For instance, couldn’t it be likely that the gulf was designed to produce extra bacteria as needed and that the extra dies off when it is no longer needed, similar to how our bodies were designed to work at solving certain problems? All that is not to say, however, that it’s okay to tug one part of the ecosystem unnaturally and then not do what can be done to help set things right.
Common sense, balanced, practical thinking that is devoid of manipulation, hype, and fabrication is what I’m promoting. The earth was not designed by humans and we do not understand all of its interconnections, therefore, it does not make sense to dismiss what is known about the earth as we explore concerns and possible solutions. Straightforwardly, I do not believe in evolutionary theories. “Ad nauseam” is not an understatement in the face of the facts that a) what is known about the earth is so often ignored, and b) what is presented as fact when it should be presented as theory continues to be publicized.
It makes sense to believe a written record of historical events that have stood the test of time by way of corroborated research to confirm or invalidate older writings throughout history rather than to believe in testing practices that have not only been called into question by modern scholars but which nature itself has refuted. My goal for touching on this is to answer your question about whether I believe in evolution and to encourage anyone reading this to stop and think about the rational of the two positions as they consider what I write.
I am not an evolutionist. I believe that God created all things just as He states in His Word. Beyond that, experience with trusting Him according to His Word has convinced me that He is bigger than anything we can imagine--completely omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and that no matter what problems any part of His creation may ever face He infinitely rules and overrules. He has proven the counsel of His Word to me many times over thereby increasing my confidence in what He has revealed to us in creation and in His Word. At this point I refer readers to my other hubs for the time being, and I am going back to the main focus of this hub.
The issues related to this hub’s mention of supposed data that proved to be grossly flawed could tentacle out for miles in every direction. What I know about the parents who murdered their children and themselves is that their motives and consequent actions were wrong. Whether the government or scientists or the media have any responsibility for those deaths is something we should give a good amount of consideration to for the information those people were operating from had a source. The question of whether they were researching “facts” is underlined and highlighted by reports of dishonesty among scientists, as well as politicians and the media.
Al Gore certainly is not a scientist and it’s a pitiful thing to watch him pretend to be one. It’s even sadder to see how he uses his money and influence as a climate activist as he promotes himself as an expert. From what I can tell, his words and actions point to a picture of someone who lacks common sense but is being used by others who are shrewd business people. He does nothing to create an atmosphere of confidence and trust in either the persons working to address valid concerns or their efforts.
I think I understand what you mean if you are speaking of a “true” scientific approach, but what is called science does not always constitute common sense. We have too many examples that give us good reason to stop and think. Look at the supposed proofs of evolution that were debunked by the examples that the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The effects of its explosion as well as the remarkable recoveries of the areas it affected are just one example of truth being ignored by evolutionists. Every branch of science needs what common sense thinking we mere humans can bring to it, but the scale of dismissiveness toward facts and some outright deceptions, possibly in the name of research but at times for self-advancement, have been nothing short of a colossal betrayal to the very word “science.”
Please understand that I’ve moved along here with no expectation of thoroughly covering any of these issues, just making a diligent effort to focus on our need to exercise common sense. Besides mentioning that I try to display an attitude of being careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and, therefore, I do not dismiss the importance of science, I want to wind this up by pointing out that from the title of this short hub through to the last paragraph I wrote with a tongue-in-cheek spirit. Seriously, though, I understand that you are very concerned and I do not believe that there is anything comical about the responsibility of our stewardship of the earth.
You’ve given me some food for thought and in the future when I consider a lack of common sense, a lack of character, and a lack of willingness to pursue truth regarding any issue, scientific or otherwise, I believe your words to the effect of “what is done to try to solve problems can cause more harm than good” will ring in my mind.
RTalloni Hub Author 2 years ago
Will try to add links to the article as they come up.