Global Warming: It's not science, its propaganda.

Exaggerated, probably.

I don't buy the whole Doomsday scenario that some paint, but I also don't argue that the air in China is healthy.

It's both

quote:

---

I don't buy the whole Doomsday scenario that some paint, but I also don't argue that the air in China is healthy.

---

I don't think anyone does. Nor does any reasonable person deny that climate change is happening just as it has as long as our planet has existed.

What is criminal is the way the anthropological global warming industry is allowed to blatantly lie and manipulate data to fit their agenda and face no repercussions while anyone that dares question them risks their entire career.

quote:

---

Global warming is science. The Earth is warming up, this is an objective fact. AGW is the sketchy premise in question.

---

The (unadjusted) data says that the earth is not, in fact, still warming. There is even less evidence that AGW climate science is anything but a damn Ouija board.

And Chinese air quality has nothing to do with climate science, and everything to do with a mid-level industrial revolution.

Stupid people love conspiracy theories.

The thing is though, it stops being a conspiracy theory when the conspiracy bid admitted by those conspiring. We know for a fact that data has been skewed to embellish both the rate of rise and Nan's effect on that rise.

There's no money in the claim that the earth is getting hotter and there isn't a goddamn thing we can do about it.

Reasons for adjusted data.

LINK

In his article Booker is citing statistical work by climate change skeptic Paul Homewood who runs the science blog Notalotofpeopleknowthat. Homewood has analyzed changes made to temperature data series from weather stations in South America and the Arctic from Greenland east to Siberia. Those weather stations are part of the Global Historical Climate Network and are adjusted by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) to create one of the leading global temperature data series. Homewood notes that the raw data have been adjusted, which is not at all surprising since the data are affected over the decades by shifts in station locations, instrument changes, and urban heat islands.

Very generally, in order to detect such changes, climate researchers look for abrupt shifts in the temperatures recorded at each weather station which are presumed to be artifacts rather than actual temperatures. These shifts are adjusted via an algorithm using data from nearby stations. What Homewood found is that a lot of the past data have been modified in a mostly cooling direction. Lower past temperatures would produce a steeper global warming trend over the past century or so. No doubt the researchers who fear the consequences of man-made warming are greatly edified when their adjustments produce the temperature trend that they expect. Everyone is suspectible to confirmation bias. But scandalously suspicious? Perhaps not.

And something on the author of the OP's link.

Christopher Booker

Ever heard of the iceage?

But Bill Nye the SCIENCE guy says it is a science.

If anyone has the authority on the matter, it's him.

The fact that we will spend trillions in my lifetime attempting to control the earths weather patterns is sickening to me. You can not stop what is going to happen.