ScottCurry
EF3
The guy who made global warming a household phrase in America is a pretty amazing guy who knows a lot about the subject. He also created the internet.
NOAA: Hurricane Drought Hits Record 118 Months
- Thread starter Jeff Hawkins
- Start date
ScottCurry
EF3
sorry, forgot the smiley face 
rdale
EF5
Exactly. Why anyone discusses a part of science based on chatter from astronauts (not climate change researchers), politicians (not climate change researchers), and TV meteorologists (not climate change researchers) amazes me. It would be like asking a physicist (not a tornado researcher) if it'd be a good idea to build a large wall through the middle of the US in at attempt to reduce the number of tornadoes forming.
Dave Ragozzine
EF0
...because who knows more about climate change than an astronaut... that seems valid
P.S. there is also an astronaut convinced that we are actively being visited by aliens, and that the government is covering that up too... Guess it must be true if an astronaut tells us!
You probably don't even know who John Casey is. Do your research on his background and you'll see that he is credible.
P.S. There are plenty of people who believe ET exists and the government has spent billions listening for signs of life in space. What's your point?
BTW, to think that we are the only planet with life on it, is very irrational. Do you know what is more irrational? Politicians who have been making fraudulent and stupid global warming claims for decades, yet some people still believe the "settled" science because Obama told them to.
In response to your comment, "It would be like asking a physicist (not a tornado researcher) if it'd be a good idea to build a large wall through the middle of the US in at attempt to reduce the number of tornadoes forming."
Let me ask you an honest question, has extreme meteorologist Reed Timmer discovered anything new about tornadoes? He sure makes a lot of money storm chasing (net worth of $250,000) and I have yet to see any of his research being used to save lives, build stronger houses, create earlier warnings etc. If you look at the research being done over the last 3-7 years, it is wasting money while producing no new data on tornadoes. All of this "science" with NOAA is just a scheme to make certain people richer under the guise of research. BTW, we know what conditions need to exist for a tornado to form, which means that it is possible to modify weather conditions in order to reduce the severity of the storms; reducing the possibility of tornadoes. Humans have been finding ways to gain an upper hand on mother nature for a long time now. Areas in the mid west have large walls in the fields around highways that are designed to reduce the intensity of snow drifts in order to keep motorists on the highways safer. Also, a meteorologist is not an architect or structural engineer, therefore they are not qualified to build anything. (using your logic).
You also don't need to go to college to be knowledgeable in a field and there are plenty of college graduates who wouldn't know steel from aluminum or rubber from plastic.
What I am getting at is: your points are invalid.
rdale
EF5
I certainly do. The science doesn't support his claims. He doesn't have research that nullifies anthropogenic warming.
Sure - but not plenty of people think ET actively stops by the Earth for a visit. My point is that you used an astronaut's claim on climate as "verification" that the science is wrong. I'm just saying don't trust an astronaut for things outside of their expertise
You do know that President Bush (the first) is the one who started the US on the climate change path, right? That's why I say any mention of politicians in a climate change discussion is a bad track to take...
No idea. His formal research doesn't appear to be in the tornado realm.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2007JAMC1552.1
I talked to those "rich" researchers at Michigan State University (making $10 an hour as grad assistants.) Apparently they don't have your source of "research" dollars just waiting for them to claim since they "believe" in climate change
Absolutely. So when a physicist claims that a tornado wall would stop tornadoes, your idea of "well they are smart so maybe it's worth a shot" falls flat.
Ehh, I think you'll find when it comes to something like climate change - if you are going to challenge the science you do need to a college education and then some. Science doesn't work based on the number of Wikipedia links you can find. It's based on theories and research and conclusions. You are ignoring the established science because of one reason (and one alone)... It doesn't fit in with the viewpoints of your political party (but it used to.) When politics trumps science, the world is in a very bad place...
Jeff Hawkins
EF3
Wow...this has shifted beyond what I was thinking about Sandy in my original comment. I was merely recalling that they categorized it as an extra-tropical system at the time, but recall there was controversy about that and there were those who felt it should be left as a hurricane. That's why I love ST with stuff like this...and the fact we have people of such divergent educations and viewpoints who see the limitations and even errors in such articles and point them out. I appreciated the comment about the story looking at only the wind category and not the surge factor. As far as the question of NOAA data manipulation, I recall a story recently about buoy data, here is a link to a story about that (I am one of those interested in straight facts, nothing more..and unfortunately with climate change pure scientific facts without politics infused seem hard to come by). http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/n...a-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/ Did NOAA publish any response to this? I haven't seen one. Here's NOAA's page from the same date as the Daily Caller article (6/4/15) http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/storie...owdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html
Interesting stuff here. Only had two thoughts here. One was Katrina. One thing everyone saw in the videos and pics were lots of cars half submerged or sunk. This after being told to evacuate. I was down there last year and my tour bus driver told me "momma didn't raise no fool, when they said get out, I got out" looked to me like a lot of fools just didn't listen.
The other thing I saw was someone questioning the falsified data. Well, whoever pointed out about the falsified data is right. Look it up
The other thing I saw was someone questioning the falsified data. Well, whoever pointed out about the falsified data is right. Look it up
rdale
EF5
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...
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...
Uhh, Dale, I actually talked to a lot of people who live in New Orleans and lived there pre-Katrina. There of course were some people without the means to get out. I'm talking about all the people who could and didn't, which explains the crap load of flooded cars. I'm not going to argue with the bar owner who said he was "stupid" for not leaving. There were lots of people that just figured they would "ride it out"
Take "peer reviewed research" out of your google search in regards to altered data. It's like looking for peer reviewed research into the Patriots deflate gate or peer reviewed research about Lois Lerner's missing emails. If you don't want to look, that's fine. I still wish you the best.
Take "peer reviewed research" out of your google search in regards to altered data. It's like looking for peer reviewed research into the Patriots deflate gate or peer reviewed research about Lois Lerner's missing emails. If you don't want to look, that's fine. I still wish you the best.
John Farley
Supporter
While there certainly were some who could have evacuated but did not, Rob is absolutely right that there were a lot of people who had no means to evacuate. New Orleans, at that time, had one of the higher percentages of households without a motor vehicle available of any city. In addition to that, there were a number of households with an elderly or disabled person who could not easily evacuate. So while some people were indeed "stupid" for not leaving, there were thousands who had no means to evacuate without assistance.
As to the falsified data issue, I know after a long career in academic research (with quite a few peer-reviewed papers of my own published) a little bit about how the system works. If any peer-reviewed journal discovered at a later time that an article they published was based on falsified data, they WOULD run a retraction. Todd, I think if you are going to make such accusations, the burden of proof is on you to provide some documentation.
As to the falsified data issue, I know after a long career in academic research (with quite a few peer-reviewed papers of my own published) a little bit about how the system works. If any peer-reviewed journal discovered at a later time that an article they published was based on falsified data, they WOULD run a retraction. Todd, I think if you are going to make such accusations, the burden of proof is on you to provide some documentation.
rdale
EF5
Understood - but there were FAR more who may or may not have wanted to but couldn't. Far more.
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.
ScottCurry
EF3
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.
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.
Very well said Scott
Dave Ragozzine
EF0
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/
Dave Ragozzine
EF0
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.
Similar threads
