Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
"Steven Goddard" is a pseudonym, and he lied, according to This |
So what if it's a pseudonym. Knowing how crazy and mentally unhinged climate activists can be I would use a pseudonym too.
And besides, he didn't lie. He simply analyzes data. He may make mistakes in his analysis but it is now well documented, by him and others, that the NOAA does in fact adjust the raw data. Why do they adjust the raw data? What are they hoping to achieve? Just the fact that they adjust raw data should be cause for deep suspicion, if not alarm, in any rational thinking person.
And then there is this from the link you posted:
Quote:
|
As I wrote back in January 2009: The collection of US data is not even remotely close to the claimed ?high quality? (except in a relative sense to that of the global data). Data from the rest of the world is far worse in coverage, comparability (both geographically and temporally), and accuracy. These systems are grossly underfunded vs the seriousness of the public policy issues.
|
That is spot on - the temperature record, especially the surface record, is unreliable and yet it forms the basis for this entire fiasco. On top of that agencies like the NOAA are adjusting data that is unreliable in the first place. What kind of outcome are you expecting from that? GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by **********;
Carbon Dioxide has not been classified as pollution until only just very recently. CO2 is also one of the main greenhouse gasses.
[...]
CO2 by itself isn't bad -- It's *too much* CO2 in the atmosphere is what is bad. The earth already has a greenhouse gas / effect in place with CO2, Methane and other gases in the atmosphere. What we humans are doing is elevating these levels unnecessarily, and taking away the earths ability to absorb those gases.
|
CO2 is not pollution. Just because some backward thinking, incompetent and corrupt bureaucrat at a government agency decides, for reasons of political expediency, to classify it as such does not make it so.
We don't have too much CO2 now and we will never see too much CO2 in our lifetimes or in the existence of humanity. Real science is already calling into question the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect and the climate's sensitivity to increased CO2. Even the IPCC has reduced its proposed climate sensitivity to CO2 and we are likely to see further reductions going forward as new science comes to light.
For someone who claims to love science so much and know so much about it you sure have bought in to the whole "science is settled" lie even though you should know better.
Spending money on carbon reduction, carbon sequestration or anything else to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is a crime against humanity. All of that money could be spent finding real solutions to real problems.
.