NOAA: Hurricane Drought Hits Record 118 Months

  • Please note the forum rules were updated today. You may review them by clicking here

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
7,228
777
21
50
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
I'm talking about all the people who could and didn't, which explains the crap load of flooded cars.
Understood - but there were FAR more who may or may not have wanted to but couldn't. Far more.

It's like looking for peer reviewed research into the Patriots deflate gate or peer reviewed research about Lois Lerner's missing emails.
No, it's not like that at all... Science is... oh nevermind. It's clear you are not here to talk about facts, you set your mind already because Rush told you to.
 
This conversation should have been a thread. Most of the comments have nothing to do with the original story. Very interesting conversation though. It's amazing to see how many different viewpoints there are on this forum. I wish there was a way to "Like" comments.

There is an observation that I have noticed about science research. Most scientists do their absolute best to do thorough research and experiments before publishing anything. Yes there are a few who publish falsified data, but the vast majority of the time, this is not the case. Now what happens after those scientific results are published though, that's another story. The media reports what they want to report. Politicians say what they want to say. Other scientists in other fields come to different conclusions, based upon their viewpoints and expertise. And all of them use the same data from the original publication.

When drawing your own conclusions, don't google what the media, politicians, or conspiracy theorists say about a subject. Look at the actual research and come to your own conclusions. Because we all have different backgrounds, educations, and experiences, we will all draw different conclusions from the same data. This is a great place to discuss those different conclusions, but let's be respectful of other people's opinions. All too often what everybody believes to be a fact, years later new research proves the old thinking wrong. Be open to new ideas, even if they disagree with your current way of thinking. New research is being conducted and published all the time. It takes years for the new research to become peer-reviewed. In the meantime, consider the new research, but take it with a grain of salt until enough experts have reviewed the research and proven it to be legit.
 
1) When you have no way to get out, but the city says they will come and get you, and they don't -- well, I don't think those left behind are foolish. Except for believing Mayor Nagin would follow through with his word. Realize what "extreme poverty" looks like. If you are posting here, you are not in that category. Calling them foolish because they didn't evacuate displays a complete lack of knowledge behind the situation.

2) I did look it up. No peer-reviewed research shows any evidence of human-caused climate change being based on falsified data. Please post hard evidence...
Rdale, Here's what I'm going to do for you. I am going to post several articles on the same subject that back up and provide hard evidence as to what I claimed and what Todd said. If, after reading them you still think we are incorrect, I'll bid you a good day. I can understand why some people here might not want to believe that NOAA commits fraud. After all there are probably many college graduates here who's only hope at paying off their student debt is to get a government job. My cousin works for a watchdog agency that spent many months in 2012 and 2013 examining suspicious claims made by scientists at the EPA, USGS and NOAA on many topics surrounding carbon emissions, green house gases etc. The statistics and data used by the government agencies was either outright fraudulent, based on inaccurate data collection methods, outdated or unsubstantiated. Maybe you need to study the politics of weather so that you can educate yourself. The regulations that have been imposed on industries because of the fake data from government agencies, the billions of our dollars that went to waste on green energy to "combat" global warming... I could go on and on with the truth, but you'd probably call me crazy. Ironic that some "smart" people with college degrees are completely incapable of seeing past their own biases to question, study and come up with results.

Do you know how this fraud generally happens?
Step 1: Run bogus computer models using cherry picked numbers and data (I call it an Algore-ithm)
Step 2: Run those bogus models until they produce results in favor of your agenda.
Step 3: Go to Congress, present the bogus data and make false claims about how in 10 years, XYZ are going to happen.
Step 4: Provide "remedies" to the future problems that your bogus models are saying will happen.
Step 5: Tell Congress that you need $50,000,000 to study your bogus claims further in order to prevent Florida from becoming the next Atlantis.
Step 6: Use a fraction of the funds Congress gives you for legitimate purposes, then embezzle the rest, use it to travel around the world to "study", etc etc.
Step 7: When "judgment day" arrives and none of your "scientific" claims panned out, make excuses by saying things like "the computer models were wrong, it wasn't us."
Step 8: Hope that nobody finds reasons to defund your agency and throw you in prison.
Step 9: Retire.

Instruments that require calibration can be manipulated to produce fraudulent data. Lets say you have a temperature sensor that logs daily highs and lows. Lets say the temperature when you set up the instrument is 75 degrees F. If you calibrate the instrument so that it reads 75 degrees F as 78.5 degrees F; what will that show over a 365 day period? Answer: It will show incorrect data.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/07/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/n...s-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/2/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/
http://watchdog.org/235235/climate-crisis-inc-1-5-trillion-per-year-house-cards/
 
When drawing your own conclusions, don't google what the media, politicians, or conspiracy theorists say about a subject. Look at the actual research and come to your own conclusions..
Unfortunately the actual research is bogus. I'd be more than happy to study what the weather is really going on. I don't have lobbyists or cronies paying me to lie. I also don't have millions of dollars to buy and install data collection instruments and modules everywhere. I can go to my local beach and measure erosion levels, rainfall totals, tides etc and be able to show you how long it will approximately take before the town needs to buy more sand to "Refill" the beach. Chances are my results wouldn't even be looked at seriously unless I have some (pointless) piece of pretty paper saying that "look at me! I went to college and learned what clouds do, therefore I know everything about weather and know better than the average person!)

The people in charge of doing the "actual research" don't care about what really happens, they only care about funding. If you want to restore credibility to weather and climate research, the government should defund NOAA and give the funds to local technical schools and private individuals so that they can build Mesonets all over the country and have instruments on their homes. Have them record the data every day, log it and submit it to a private entity that examines all the data and publishes the data as well as the findings. Do this every year for 10-30 years and you'll produce more accurate data than NOAA has in the last 50 years.
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
7,228
777
21
50
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
Rdale, Here's what I'm going to do for you. I am going to post several articles
Bzzt. Articles <> Peer Reviewed Research. I can write an article on DailyCaller RIGHT NOW that says tornadoes are caused by the position of the stars...

Ironic that some "smart" people with college degrees are completely incapable of seeing past their own biases to question, study and come up with results.
I think you missed the irony :) While I'm smart and hold degrees, it took a while for me to look past my own bias. I never agreed with climate change because it didn't make sense to me. I heard the politicians talk and assumed that if Al Gore was for it - I should be against it.

Then I did the research. I talked to people that are in school and devoted their lives to this. I realized: These are smart kids (smarter than me in this arena.) I've never taken a climate change course in my life - let alone done research. I'm a FOOL for thinking I know more about this topic than they do...

Then I read a book that has NOTHING do to with the science. It looks at all the investments oil companies are making in areas with tens of feet of impenetratable ice. Why are they doing that? You guess ;)

The Steps 1-9 part of your post has nothing do with how the science world works.
 
Since Dave is making his conclusions based upon articles, I would like to be fair to everyone reading this by posting some articles that say the exact opposite. Want to prove any viewpoint? Google your point of view, and you will find dozens of articles proving you right.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/02/10/climate-denial-food-chain-conservative-media-ru/202469
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr..._james_delingpole_tells_it_like_it_isn_t.html
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/28/434196/fakegate-heartland-scientist-debunked/
 
Bzzt. Articles <> Peer Reviewed Research. I can write an article on DailyCaller RIGHT NOW that says tornadoes are caused by the position of the stars...



I think you missed the irony :) While I'm smart and hold degrees, it took a while for me to look past my own bias. I never agreed with climate change because it didn't make sense to me. I heard the politicians talk and assumed that if Al Gore was for it - I should be against it.

Then I did the research. I talked to people that are in school and devoted their lives to this. I realized: These are smart kids (smarter than me in this arena.) I've never taken a climate change course in my life - let alone done research. I'm a FOOL for thinking I know more about this topic than they do...

Then I read a book that has NOTHING do to with the science. It looks at all the investments oil companies are making in areas with tens of feet of impenetratable ice. Why are they doing that? You guess ;)

The Steps 1-9 part of your post has nothing do with how the science world works.

Rdale, You're so closed minded it's almost scary. Read the articles instead of blatantly ignoring facts and information from credible sources. Here's why me, nor anyone with the ability to think freely cares about "peer review." http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/dozens-scientific-papers-withdrawn-probably-more-come
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/?hpid=z4

You have also cited nothing to validate your position or to invalidate mine. A truly ignorant person dismisses things without looking into them. Bzzt, you haven't posted anything other than proof that you're not very smart.

Scott, I'm making my conclusions based on facts. There is also nothing wrong with news articles unless you are someone who is afraid of things that go against whatever lies you have bought into. At least I cited non-Leftist websites, you bring Slate and ThinkProgress; two obvious, blatant and notorious Leftist websites. You might as well site Karl Marx while you're at it.
 
If you are going to throw out the whole peer review system based on this incident, YOU are the one with the closed mind. I have been a peer reviewer for dozens if not a hundred or more papers submitted to social scientific journals. Nearly all active researchers in the natural and social sciences have done the same. It takes a lot of effort to read and evaluate the soundness of these papers. I have not doubt that every review I ever wrote was read and seriously considered by the editor. Was my advice always followed? Of course not - that's why we have multiple reviewers. But it was always considered.

Yes, I am sure fraud occurs, as it does in ANY enterprise, but to advocate throwing out the whole peer review system that has generally served science well is asinine. By showing your ignorance about the peer review system, YOU are the one that is dismissing things without looking into them.

You have also cited nothing to validate your position or to invalidate mine. A truly ignorant person dismisses things without looking into them. Bzzt, you haven't posted anything other than proof that you're not very smart.

Scott, I'm making my conclusions based on facts. There is also nothing wrong with news articles unless you are someone who is afraid of things that go against whatever lies you have bought into. At least I cited non-Leftist websites, you bring Slate and ThinkProgress; two obvious, blatant and notorious Leftist websites. You might as well site Karl Marx while you're at it.
LOL! You actually say something like this after quoting Breitbart and the Daily Caller as if they were unbiased websites!
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
7,228
777
21
50
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
Rdale, You're so closed minded it's almost scary. Read the articles instead of blatantly ignoring facts and information from credible sources.
I just wanted to reflect on this... I, who had a preconceived notion against global warming, read research articles, talked to people in the research (who have not tapped into the millions of dollars you say Obama has ready to pass out), and seen the facts, and changed my mind.

Hint: That is not the definition of a closed mind.

When you say "articles" I assume you mean newspaper reports. If I read newspaper reports on tornado formation, I would think that a great wall across Kansas would eliminate tornadoes. When you can explain why reading "articles" on a science topic is not a good way to discuss science - we can chat again :)
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
7,228
777
21
50
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
Since you pointed out the issues with peer review (it's not a perfect process!) it's interesting that this paper just came out.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

They looked at some of the main papers used to say that climate change is NOT human-caused, and (surprisingly?) were unable to replicate their results. So you're right - falsified data can make it into the system. But it's easily weeded out.
 
Since you pointed out the issues with peer review (it's not a perfect process!)QUOTE]

.... So you essentially demand that I produce peer reviewed studies, but then you state that it's not a perfect process? LOL! So peer review is no different than an article from a leading newspaper that cites credible and knowledgeable people. You proved my point again Dale. I hope you chase tornadoes in an electric car. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you?
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
7,228
777
21
50
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
peer review is no different than an article from a leading newspaper
Sigh... I _hope_ you are just trolling and don't actually believe that. Seriously? You think a newspaper article has the same merit in a science discussion that a peer-reviewed science article does?

I hope you chase tornadoes in an electric car
Wow, I don't want you to take this personally but if you think that science is based on what type of car I drive, it's apparent you didn't listen to your high school teacher (or you just had a bad one.) There is no connection between the type of car a scientist drives and science facts. Do you reject Markowski's theory on rear flank downdraft because he uses Netflix and you prefer RedBox? That makes as much sense as your comparison ;)
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
7,228
777
21
50
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
Good find Todd... I get your point that the basis for "non-human caused" global warming is extremely weak. I'm afraid that Dave is so caught up in the political side of this (sad that some let politics sway their opinions of science) that he's too far out to ever consider using facts for his basis.
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
7,228
777
21
50
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
But the next time he chases - I bet he uses the same sort of science to help in his predictions. Funny stuff - science is extremely valuable when it means you take an aspirin to reduce your headache, and it enables you to forecast storm formation days in advance, but when science goes against the rants of your favorite Fox News commentator then it's stupid :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Snyder