A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.
Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion. […]
Press officers work with scientists within agencies like the National Oceanic Administration (NOAA) and NASA and are responsible for crafting misleading press releases on climate, he added.
Koonin is not the only one claiming wrongdoing. House lawmakers with the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, for instance, recently jumpstarted an investigation into NOAA after a whistleblower said agency scientists rushed a landmark global warming study to influence policymakers.
But they’re not going to go without a fight…
Obama and his minions KNOW fully well that Goebbels was right … REPEAT the LIE(s) often-enough … and a slack-jawed, overstimulated, dull-witted public start believing it as … “Truth”. So LIE they did.
And then, when the deniers refuse to play-along … use a little Maoist “Cultural cleansing” … with bullets to the brains … of those who still have operable brains.
“Obama and his minions KNOW fully well that Goebbels was right … REPEAT the LIE(s) often-enough … and a slack-jawed, overstimulated, dull-witted public start believing it as … “Truth”. So LIE they did.”
In fact this method of communication is these with us everywhere. The MSM in the US and Canada lives by that code.
It is nice that the truth about the peddlers of snake oil finally comes out.
No,it’s no coincidence the shots fired at the office of a climate change realist on the same day as the “save ze planet” march.
These fanatical bastards would kill everyone who disagrees with them if they could. Emotionally, most of them are in a stage of arrested development at about age four.
The big but hidden reality of science: it’s not the observations and data that’s the problem, it’s the interpretation of the data that is biased or fraudulent. Much like “the people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.” Particularly in fields of science where the data is close to the detection limit of the instrumentation with lots of data points, the person who adjusts the data has tremendous power. You can see in climate science that small adjustments can produce either warming, cooling or plateaus. The growing discrepancy between surface vs satellite and weather balloon data does not inspire confidence or credibility in the data adjustment process.
Recently I was reading an article about how to begin to resolve the chasm between climate scientists, alarmists,lukewarmers,skeptics and deniers. I’m sure it would be a shock for most progressives and journalists that there is any groups other than scientists and deniers given their pavlovian conditioning regarding climate science.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579
The national-security community pioneered the “Red Team” methodology to test assumptions and analyses, identify risks, and reduce—or at least understand—uncertainties. The process is now considered a best practice in high-consequence situations such as intelligence assessments, spacecraft design and major industrial operations. It is very different and more rigorous than traditional peer review, which is usually confidential and always adjudicated, rather than public and moderated
…scientists must better portray not only our certainties but also our uncertainties, and even things we may never know. Not doing so is an advisory malpractice that usurps society’s right to make choices fully informed by risk, economics and values. Moving from oracular consensus statements to an open adversarial process would shine much-needed light on the scientific debates.
What is the global temperature right now?
What was it on this day 50 years ago. One hundred years ago?
Anybody know?
What is the perfect global temperature?
What is the perfect global climate?
World socialism, just right for the warmists.
I’d go a step further than that : what were the global temps in the hottest three decades of the medieval warm period (mwp) and Roman warm period (rwp)? What was the Arctic and Antarctic max/min ice extent in the hottest three decades of the mwp and rwp? How fast was the temperature accelerating in the hottest three decades of the mwp and rwp?
Do they have enough high resolution data from other warming periods to prove the current warming period is *unprecedented*? Are climate scientists comparing apples to apples or being honest about their definition of unprecedented. From what I’ve seen they only have low resolution data from the mwp and rwp. So they’re comparing huge hundred of years of low resolution data from the mwp and rwp to 30 years of high resolution data since the mid 1980s. That is a highly misleading way to present data and conclusions.
Why 30 years? Because 1950 is the earliest date in which our CO2 emissions could influence the climate. The climate cooled in the 1970s so it’s only been warming since the mid 1980s (about 30 years).
Exactly! I figured from the beginning that the whole warmist agenda was part of the NWO socialist wealth transfer scam.
It was never about science, only politics.
Speaking about snake oil peddlers…a person can’t see a movie in the theatre without Gore’s “An Inconvenient Sequel” preview hitting them and their family in the face. I hope there is a full on rip roaring unrelenting fact filled debate over the absolute crap science-religion fraud that AGW is and the end game goals the political and globalist elites have in mind to bring to an end individual freedom, fair democracy and equal justice for all. You’d almost think the Iranians stole the eco-fascist mantra of “Death to America” from their decades long battle to kill the soul of the U.S.A. and enslave her people.
Have I told you about this new guillotine I’ve invented? Built completely from recycled materials and completely off-grid. I mean, if you were a green shyster, isn’t this the way you’d want to go?
The big but hidden reality of science: it’s not the observations and RAW data that’s the problem…
The psuedo scientists continue to screw with the raw data to make ‘calibrated’ data that fits their preconceived notions. We would call that biased or fraudulent interpretation.
we have been fed lies and crap all my life. I don’t know how we even function. being stupid seems to be the way to survive in Canada.
for me, one telling aspect of the debate is the fudging. if, IF global warming really is so much present, why, why, why the need to embellish and fudge? why? stop it mr global warming. stop writing models that carefully ignore what doesnt ‘fit’. etc etc.