Climate Data Purposely Manipulated

[jimnyc]

So who will be the first to start with the denials? This manipulation crap has been happening for years now. Maybe not on everything, but a lot of what is pushed forward is manipulated...

---

Former Obama Official: Climate Data Purposely Manipulated to Influence Public Opinion and Policy

Former Energy Department Undersecretary, Steven Koonin confirmed what we already knew to be true. The Obama administration purposely manipulated ‘climate change’ data to influence public opinion and policy.

"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.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.

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.

Koonin, who served under Obama from 2009 to 2011, went on to lament the politicization of science suggested that the ethos should be to “tell it like it is. You’re a scientist and it is your responsibility to put the facts on the table."

The climate change hoax is yet another scandal quickly unraveling since Trump became President. The global warming hoax was quickly debunked after back to back polar vortexes hit the U.S. so the criminals in the government pivoted to ‘climate change’. Climate change is another term for global redistribution of wealth.

Climate change will go down in history as another episode of ‘Lysenkoism’; it is junk science used to control the masses. Just as Stalin’s Trofim Lysenko was proven to be a charlatan, so will Al Gore and everyone involved in the climate change hoax.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/former-obama-official-climate-data-purposely-manipulated-influence-public-opinion-policy/

[Abbey Marie]

Those lying bastards.

[aboutime]

Jim, and Abbey. This leads to the obvious question: "Who'da Thunk It?"

Imagine someone actually admitting that OBAMA lied????:laugh::laugh:

[Black Diamond]

Jim, and Abbey. This leads to the obvious question: "Who'da Thunk It?"

Imagine someone actually admitting that OBAMA lied????:laugh::laugh:
You can keep your plan.

[aboutime]

You can keep your plan.


Sure thing Black Diamond. Let's ask all of the Liberals who loved Obama how that is working out for them. :laugh::laugh:

[BoogyMan]

So who will be the first to start with the denials? This manipulation crap has been happening for years now. Maybe not on everything, but a lot of what is pushed forward is manipulated...

Any you will notice the complete LACK of any kind of coverage within the DNC stenography pool that is the mainstream media.

[pete311]

Any you will notice the complete LACK of any kind of coverage within the DNC stenography pool that is the mainstream media.
Maybe because an opinion piece at the WSJ has no legs. So they got some hurricane data wrong. What's the big story here?

[aboutime]

Maybe because an opinion piece at the WSJ has no legs. So they got some hurricane data wrong. What's the big story here?


petey. Once again. You are so funny, and happily willing to show us how literally dumb you are. Sounds like you would insist Hitler was just trying to clean up Europe, because he hated Jewish food.

[pete311]

petey. Once again. You are so funny, and happily willing to show us how literally dumb you are. Sounds like you would insist Hitler was just trying to clean up Europe, because he hated Jewish food.
cool story bro

[Kathianne]

Maybe because an opinion piece at the WSJ has no legs. So they got some hurricane data wrong. What's the big story here?
Everyone needs to read, maybe a bit more slowly?

They didn't 'manipulate,' they spun.

They didn't get the 'hurricane data wrong' they misled.

They reported that hurricanes 'increased' over a specific time period, while leaving the fact that for a similar time period preceding that reported period, they'd decreased.

Thus, the misleading part is that if one were to take the two time periods, they averaged out to 'normal number of hurricanes.'

They were cherry picking. Which is misleading, but not manipulative to those who read the footnotes. It was obviously an attempt to push an agenda.

[pete311]

Everyone needs to read, maybe a bit more slowly?

They didn't 'manipulate,' they spun.

They didn't get the 'hurricane data wrong' they misled.

They reported that hurricanes 'increased' over a specific time period, while leaving the fact that for a similar time period preceding that reported period, they'd decreased.

Thus, the misleading part is that if one were to take the two time periods, they averaged out to 'normal number of hurricanes.'

They were cherry picking. Which is misleading, but not manipulative to those who read the footnotes. It was obviously an attempt to push an agenda.

Ya know what else is cherry picking and agenda pushing? The interview and this thread. Claiming mass conspiracy and science fraud by tens of thousands of scientists worldwide because of one man's bias and one example of massaged hurricane data.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ya know what else is cherry picking and agenda pushing? The interview and this thread. Claiming mass conspiracy and science fraud by tens of thousands of scientists worldwide because of one man's bias and one example of massaged hurricane data.

An agenda pushed that rewards by paying through government grant monies and other means is easy to push(AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS NOW).
And right Pete, who would ever believe that people would dare lie and engage in fraud just to get money!??-:rolleyes:-TYR

[pete311]

An agenda pushed that rewards by paying through government grant monies and other means is easy to push(AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS NOW).
And right Pete, who would ever believe that people would dare lie and engage in fraud just to get money!??-:rolleyes:-TYR

If tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no just US, are in on this, then humanity is truly doomed. Forget the climate, we need to reboot the human race.

[Gunny]

If tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no just US, are in on this, then humanity is truly doomed. Forget the climate, we need to reboot the human race.This thread is cracking me up. pete311. You're as bad as your accusations. I lived in S FL half my childhood then just to make sure I didn't miss anything, Japan. Here's your climate data: There's a hurricane coming. They come along when they want to, and they land where they want to.

Man's arrogance never ceases to amaze me. All your eggheads can't predict jack nothing. But they get paid well to pretend they can. Case in point : David was supposed to slam Miami. Had a dead bead on us and was running in a straight line. We're boarded up. got the windows taped. 4 cases of beer and lots of Doritos.:laugh: The cane does a right face and goes and slams the Hell out of Orlando. All we got was rain.

Your little boys playing God can't predict jack sh*t.

[Russ]

And the Obama administration also spun the data to underestimate the dangers of terrorism, uncontrolled borders, making stupid deals with Iran, and acting like a spineless wimp when dealing with Syria. What a coincidence.

[Gunny]

And the Obama administration also spun the data to underestimate the dangers of terrorism, uncontrolled borders, making stupid deals with Iran, and acting like a spineless wimp when dealing with Syria. What a coincidence.I look at Obama like a Rocky/Rambo movie. If you're his "friend", you're going under the bus. Everybody around him is expendable.

[jimnyc]

Maybe because an opinion piece at the WSJ has no legs. So they got some hurricane data wrong. What's the big story here?


Ya know what else is cherry picking and agenda pushing? The interview and this thread. Claiming mass conspiracy and science fraud by tens of thousands of scientists worldwide because of one man's bias and one example of massaged hurricane data.

Serious question, Pete

If thousands upon thousands upon thousands of the best scientists in every country all state factually about climate change..... Then WHY do we find out about endless scientists, or others, that are changing/manipulating/overstating/lying/misled/cherrypicked---- wouldn't they just have a ton of data to run with to prove everything about what they say? I just don't see the need for any of them to do so, if all we are told about climate change is in fact true. But yet, here we are, with yet another story about things being altered/changed, for like the billionth time now.

[NightTrain]

If tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no just US, are in on this, then humanity is truly doomed. Forget the climate, we need to reboot the human race.

Tens of Thousands of Scientists also concluded that the world was flat.

Tens of Thousands of Scientists knew the Sun revolved around the world.

Tens of Thousands practiced Alchemy.

Tens of Thousands asserted heavier-than-air flight was impossible.

Tens of thousands thought humans only had 5 senses.

I could go on and on with this, but I trust you get my point.

How many times have we talked about another revelation of corrupt politicians / scientists doctoring the figures to suit their agenda, Petey? And it would appear that you have faithfully obeyed your Pavlovian Response to try and defend the indefensible every single time.

[Gunny]

Tens of Thousands of Scientists also concluded that the world was flat.

Tens of Thousands of Scientists knew the Sun revolved around the world.

Tens of Thousands practiced Alchemy.

Tens of Thousands asserted heavier-than-air flight was impossible.

Tens of thousands thought humans only had 5 senses.

I could go on and on with this, but I trust you get my point.

How many times have we talked about another revelation of corrupt politicians / scientists doctoring the figures to suit their agenda, Petey? And it would appear that you have faithfully obeyed your Pavlovian Response to try and defend the indefensible every single time.Don't be too hard on pete. I like arguing with him. At ,east he doesn't run away like some others. And the Russian of the day is dumber than he is.

[pete311]

Serious question, Pete

If thousands upon thousands upon thousands of the best scientists in every country all state factually about climate change..... Then WHY do we find out about endless scientists, or others, that are changing/manipulating/overstating/lying/misled/cherrypicked---- wouldn't they just have a ton of data to run with to prove everything about what they say? I just don't see the need for any of them to do so, if all we are told about climate change is in fact true. But yet, here we are, with yet another story about things being altered/changed, for like the billionth time now.

Endless? These reports are from people on the margins of the issue. I can find plenty of piss poor "scientists" that claim the earth is flat, the moon landing was a hoax or that gravity doesn't exist. There will always be bad professionals in any professional. You will always find bad information on each margin. That's why you don't trust the margins. You go with the aggregate.

Now, I'm not saying blindly trust the gov. I would be skeptical if the gov studies and agencies severely conflicted with other studies around the world, but they don't. There is no mass global science conspiracy. Trust the aggregate and the process of peer review, otherwise you're just putting your chips with the wackos in the margins and those people usually look like fools in the history books.

[pete311]

Tens of Thousands of Scientists also concluded that the world was flat.

Tens of Thousands of Scientists knew the Sun revolved around the world.

Tens of Thousands practiced Alchemy.

Tens of Thousands asserted heavier-than-air flight was impossible.

Tens of thousands thought humans only had 5 senses.

I could go on and on with this, but I trust you get my point.

How many times have we talked about another revelation of corrupt politicians / scientists doctoring the figures to suit their agenda, Petey? And it would appear that you have faithfully obeyed your Pavlovian Response to try and defend the indefensible every single time.

The big difference is that those beliefs didn't have any overwhelming science to back them up. It's a very important distinction.

You are hypocritical to dismiss anything scientists say if you live in our modern world. Look around, they get a lot right.

[Abbey Marie]

The big difference is that those beliefs didn't have any overwhelming science to back them up. It's a very important distinction.

You are hypocritical to dismiss anything scientists say if you live in our modern world. Look around, they get a lot right.

I'm sure they thought they did.

[pete311]

I'm sure they thought they did.

Many of those wrong concepts posted were before the start of the scientific method. Even Newton worked on Alchemy, but that doesn't mean anything came of it, obviously. Point is, with climate change, we have the data.

[jimnyc]

Endless? These reports are from people on the margins of the issue. I can find plenty of piss poor "scientists" that claim the earth is flat, the moon landing was a hoax or that gravity doesn't exist. There will always be bad professionals in any professional. You will always find bad information on each margin. That's why you don't trust the margins. You go with the aggregate.

Now, I'm not saying blindly trust the gov. I would be skeptical if the gov studies and agencies severely conflicted with other studies around the world, but they don't. There is no mass global science conspiracy. Trust the aggregate and the process of peer review, otherwise you're just putting your chips with the wackos in the margins and those people usually look like fools in the history books.

Yes, while not 20 a day, the amount in general over time is a lot for this issue.

I have to wonder the need for so many to lie and manipulate and what not, if all of the studies over the past 3 decades or so were 100% spot on, and there is 100% proven and verifiable data and all that jazz....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Many of those wrong concepts posted were before the start of the scientific method. Even Newton worked on Alchemy, but that doesn't mean anything came of it, obviously. Point is, with climate change, we have the data.


Point is, with climate change, we have the data

Yes you do-- much of it forged and/or altered to meet a required outcome...
Why , is the question...
Mixing up the natural changes due to changes in our Sun , with made up conclusions, that those changes come from mankind's activities.

No Pete, the lying was done because the conclusions are false and based upon predictions (computer generated) not solid and well proven facts..
More and more scientists are now coming out and saying the climate change propaganda is just that--paid for conclusions that fit a narrative..-Tyr

[pete311]

Yes, while not 20 a day, the amount in general over time is a lot for this issue.

I have to wonder the need for so many to lie and manipulate and what not, if all of the studies over the past 3 decades or so were 100% spot on, and there is 100% proven and verifiable data and all that jazz....

Again the amount of manipulation is in the margins. Some people just choose to focus on them.

Science does not prove anything. That is only in math and logic.

[pete311]

Yes you do-- much of it forged and/or altered to meet a required outcome...
Why , is the question...
Mixing up the natural changes due to changes in our Sun , with made up conclusions, that those changes come from mankind's activities.


Tens of thousands of scientists worldwide working together to forge data to meet a universally desired outcome for themselves. Wow, hell of an operation!

Mixing up natural changes? Dude that is like kindergarten for these scientists. Do not insult them.

[Russ]

Many of those wrong concepts posted were before the start of the scientific method. Even Newton worked on Alchemy, but that doesn't mean anything came of it, obviously. Point is, with climate change, we have the data.

How about all the scientists that were so sure that eating eggs would give you high cholesterol? For decades they told us not to eat eggs because they are unhealthy. Now, after skipping breakfast for decades, the scientists are telling us "eggs are actually fine, but whatever you do, don't skip breakfast!"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160211083044.htm

Or how about when scientists said "don't use butter, use margarine instead". After decades of people eating crappy margarine, the scientists say "wait, now you should use butter - we don't know what we're talking about".

http://www.health.harvard.edu/nutrition/butter-vs-margarine

The thing that gets me is how sure they always are. Scientists: often wrong, but always 100% sure they're right.

[Abbey Marie]

Many of those wrong concepts posted were before the start of the scientific method. Even Newton worked on Alchemy, but that doesn't mean anything came of it, obviously. Point is, with climate change, we have the data.

Doesnt mattter. Every generation of scientists feels sure they have the tools and knowledge to evaluate the situation. Someday future scientists will look back on ours and say, well, they just couldn't know at that time what the truth was.

As for climate specifically, we have data for too short a time span relative to the age of the earth to draw conclusions about change with certainty.

[Black Diamond]

How about all the scientists that were so sure that eating eggs would give you high cholesterol? For decades they told us not to eat eggs because they are unhealthy. Now, after skipping breakfast for decades, the scientists are telling us "eggs are actually fine, but whatever you do, don't skip breakfast!"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160211083044.htm

Or how about when scientists said "don't use butter, use margarine instead". After decades of people eating crappy margarine, the scientists say "wait, now you should use butter - we don't know what we're talking about".

http://www.health.harvard.edu/nutrition/butter-vs-margarine

The thing that gets me is how sure they always are. Scientists: often wrong, but always 100% sure they're right.
I get tired of "red meat is good" red meat is bad". I feel like the studies reverse themselves each week.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tens of thousands of scientists worldwide working together to forge data to meet a universally desired outcome for themselves. Wow, hell of an operation!

Mixing up natural changes? Dude that is like kindergarten for these scientists. Do not insult them.
Do not insult me with your acting like those crying it is real are not being paid to say so.
With money, government grants and /university positions , adoration , fame, etc..
It is well known that it as a lucrative bandwagon to hop on...
Your dismissal of reality and pretending altruistic motives for those scientists is dishonest at the least and outright pathetic folly at most, IMHO..-TYR

[pete311]

How about all the scientists that were so sure that eating eggs would give you high cholesterol? For decades they told us not to eat eggs because they are unhealthy. Now, after skipping breakfast for decades, the scientists are telling us "eggs are actually fine, but whatever you do, don't skip breakfast!"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160211083044.htm

Or how about when scientists said "don't use butter, use margarine instead". After decades of people eating crappy margarine, the scientists say "wait, now you should use butter - we don't know what we're talking about".

http://www.health.harvard.edu/nutrition/butter-vs-margarine

The thing that gets me is how sure they always are. Scientists: often wrong, but always 100% sure they're right.

So, why trust anything? Better turn your computer off. Maybe we don't understand electricity. Might blow up in your face.

[Russ]

By the way, the biggest reason I'm suspicious of climate change scientists, is because here's how a typical climate-change scientist argues the global warming question:

Citizen: "So what is the evidence that climate change is caused by man, as opposed to just being a cycle of nature?"
Climate Change Scientist: "I don't need to explain it. Global warming is caused by man, and the debate is settled and over."
Citizen: "So you can't discuss your evidence?"
Climate Change Scientist: "I don't need to present any evidence - you should take my word for it!"
Citizen: "If the argument is settled, why are you still getting grant money to study it?"
Climate Change Scientist: "I said it's settled! Where do you work? I'm going to try to get you fired."

[pete311]

Doesnt mattter. Every generation of scientists feels sure they have the tools and knowledge to evaluate the situation. Someday future scientists will look back on ours and say, well, they just couldn't know at that time what the truth was.

As for climate specifically, we have data for too short a time span relative to the age of the earth to draw conclusions about change with certainty.

That is a beauty of science.

As I said before, why trust anything then. Apparently you do trust many things science has figure out. Seems you have an agenda against climate change or your suspicion would carry over into all science. But you don't live in a cave.

[Black Diamond]

So, why trust anything? Better turn your computer off. Maybe we don't understand electricity. Might blow up in your face.
In order for that to be equivalent, we would need data that goes back billions of years. Or will agree with me the world is only 5000 years old ?

[pete311]

Do not insult me with your acting like those crying it is real are not being paid to say so.
With money, government grants and /university positions , adoration , fame, etc..
It is well known that it as a lucrative bandwagon to hop on...
Your dismissal of reality and pretending altruistic motives for those scientists is dishonest at the least and outright pathetic folly at most, IMHO..-TYR

Not every study is gov money funded. Strange those studies align with the findings elsewhere.

[pete311]

By the way, the biggest reason I'm suspicious of climate change scientists, is because here's how a typical climate-change scientist argues the global warming question:

Citizen: "So what is the evidence that climate change is caused by man, as opposed to just being a cycle of nature?"
Climate Change Scientist: "I don't need to explain it. Global warming is caused by man, and the debate is settled and over."
Citizen: "So you can't discuss your evidence?"
Climate Change Scientist: "I don't need to present any evidence - you should take my word for it!"
Citizen: "If the argument is settled, why are you still getting grant money to study it?"
Climate Change Scientist: "I said it's settled! Where do you work? I'm going to try to get you fired."

When did you debate a climatologist?

[pete311]

In order for that to be equivalent, we would need data that goes back billions of years. Or will agree with me the world is only 5000 years old ?

You believe the world is only 5k years old?

[Black Diamond]

When did you debate a climatologist?
He saw someone else do it

[Black Diamond]

You believe the world is only 5k years old?
Do you have billions of years of data re how climate/ weather behaves?

[pete311]

He saw someone else do it

Watching one debate with a climatologist suddenly makes that the typical response? Poor evidence right there!

[pete311]

Do you have billions of years of data re how climate/ weather behaves?

What does climate data have to do with knowing the Earth is older than 5k years?

[Black Diamond]

What does climate data have to do with knowing the Earth is older than 5k years?
Because if the earth is billions of years old, you certainly don't have enough climate data to prove global warming is man made and not simply a cycle. If it's 5000 you just might.

[pete311]

Because if the earth is billions of years old, you certainly don't have enough climate data to prove global warming is man made and not simply a cycle. If it's 5000 you just might.

Science never proves anything. Only in math there are proofs.

[Black Diamond]

Watching one debate with a climatologist suddenly makes that the typical response? Poor evidence right there!
Who is the #1 Darwinist right now? I have heard him say he wants any scientist fired from their jobs if they believe in creationism.

[Black Diamond]

Science never proves anything. Only in math there are proofs.
I agree with that.

[pete311]

Who is the #1 Darwinist right now? I have heard him say he wants any scientist fired from their jobs if they believe in creationism.

People can believe what they want, but creationism is a false equivalence to scientific study of evolution.

[jimnyc]

So, why trust anything? Better turn your computer off. Maybe we don't understand electricity. Might blow up in your face.

Holy crap, and I'm like only about 1 1/2 feet from it!! WTF Pete??? I'm turning this FU^%er off right now!!!

Only cuz I gotta hit the grocery store though. When I return, I'm gonna go against the odds and turn this sucker right back on again! :)

[pete311]

Holy crap, and I'm like only about 1 1/2 feet from it!! WTF Pete??? I'm turning this FU^%er off right now!!!

Only cuz I gotta hit the grocery store though. When I return, I'm gonna go against the odds and turn this sucker right back on again! :)
Don't take a car! We don't understand friction, momentum, acceleration!

[Black Diamond]

People can believe what they want, but creationism is a false equivalence to scientific study of evolution.
You'll admit, then, that scientists can get hell bent and get people fired if they don't tow the line and that Russ' anecdote isn't far fetched.

[pete311]

You'll admit, then, that scientists can get hell bent and get people fired if they don't tow the line and that Russ' anecdote isn't far fetched.

There should be standards, but as I've mentioned previously there are plenty of bad scientists and bad communicators, but they are on the margins. If you choose to focus on the margins, you'll become a conspiracy theorist. This is different than healthy skepticism, which is a good thing.

[Black Diamond]

There should be standards, but as I've mentioned previously there are plenty of bad scientists and bad communicators, but they are on the margins. If you choose to focus on the margins, you'll become a conspiracy theorist. This is different than healthy skepticism, which is a good thing.
I don't consider Richard Dawkins to be on the fringe. He's on a crusade against Christianity

[pete311]

I don't consider Richard Dawkins to be on the fringe. He's on a crusade against Christianity

Neither do I. I don't understand the relevance of the crusade comment.

[Black Diamond]

Neither do I. I don't understand the relevance of the crusade comment.
He is the one who wants scientists fired.

[pete311]

He is the one who wants scientists fired.
If they are Christian?

[Black Diamond]

If they are Christian?
It may have been for believing in creationism or the age of the earth. The guy didn't even propagate it. He just held the belief. Dawkins wanted him fired, tenure or not.

[pete311]

It may have been for believing in creationism or the age of the earth. The guy didn't even propagate it. He just held the belief. Dawkins wanted him fired, tenure or not.
From the articles I can find, it was a teacher and he was teaching it instead of evolution.

[Black Diamond]

From the articles I can find, it was a teacher and he was teaching it instead of evolution.
It was an interview he did on de grasse Tysons show.

[pete311]

It was an interview he did on de grasse Tysons show.
What is "it"?

[Black Diamond]

https://youtu.be/4z4gISBuDVU
What is "it"?
Quite lengthy. But you'll enjoy most of it

[pete311]

https://youtu.be/4z4gISBuDVU
Quite lengthy. But you'll enjoy most of it

Watching it now, but what is the controversy?

[Black Diamond]

Watching it now, but what is the controversy?
Dawkins wants a guy fired and Tyson is more tolerant about it

[pete311]

Dawkins wants a guy fired and Tyson is more tolerant about it

Because he was teaching creationism in his class. Seems reasonable to me.

[Black Diamond]

Because he was teaching creationism in his class. Seems reasonable to me.
No. Did you watch?

[pete311]

No. Did you watch?
What minute is it in? Regardless, I read an article about the situation and he was teaching his students.

[Black Diamond]

What minute is it in? Regardless, I read an article about the situation and he was teaching his students.
I am sure he wants teachers fired for teaching creationism. That isn't what he talks about in this video.

[pete311]

I am sure he wants teachers fired for teaching creationism. That isn't what he talks about in this video.

For believing I disagree, for teaching I agree.