GOLDSTEIN: Feds scrapped 100 years of data on climate change

Posted by $ nickursis 10 months, 3 weeks ago to Government
29 comments | Share | Flag

So, for all you who buy into the smash and grab called "climate change", get this: Climate is defined as: "The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) describes climate "normals" as "reference points used by climatologists to compare current climatological trends to that of the past or what is considered 'normal'. A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 30-year period. A 30 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends."[9] The WMO originated from the International Meteorological Organization which set up a technical commission for climatology in 1929. At its 1934 Wiesbaden meeting the technical commission designated the thirty-year period from 1901 to 1930 as the reference time frame for climatological standard normals. In 1982 the WMO agreed to update climate normals, and these were subsequently completed on the basis of climate data from 1 January 1961 to 31 December 1990.[10]" (wikipedia). Now, read this article and explain how, if we use 30 years as measuring periods, we can have "climate change" with only THREE data points? How can you say there is "climate change" when you throw out 70% of the data you don't like? Have you figured it out yet? If they can't lie loud enough to steal your money (read" Carbon tax, cap and trade), then they just "delete" the data? Don't believe their crap. Investigate your data and facts.
SOURCE URL: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-feds-scrapped-100-years-of-data-on-climate-change?fbclid=IwAR3C4P2CBJwFefAiyvQ21fitIp6sVm8cDjBL6IemNCNYIfnzwV-SlEBJVAs

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by exceller 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Let me guess: they deleted "data" that is not supporting their "theory" of man-made climate change.

    Reading the text, I am correct: Temperatures were higher than they are now. Of course it does not fit.

    I also find it odd that the "scientists" behind the delete claim that the reason was this data being "model-driven" .

    The entire climate change hoax is based on modeling. The hockey-stick theory is based on modeling, by omitting crucial data, mind you.

    Obfuscating phony bunch...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by zagros 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    This is simply a variant on the old idea by Malthus regarding overpopulation. These neo-Malthusians will not be happy until they are running a totalitarian state. The solution to this is simple: if there is a risk of climate catastrophe, give responsibility for dealing with it to the actual EXPERTS in risk: the insurance industry. Let's face it: the only real concern we ought to have about a changing climate (if there is one) is whether it affects us in the form of more droughts, flooding, hurricanes, etc. If these things come to pass, it will show up in our insurance premiums. Problem solved with no government intervention necessary. But the neo-Malthusian climate "scientists" aren't interested in actually solving a problem (if it exists) -- they are interested in controlling our lives.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      Thus we have the Georgia Stones. They were the details of their plan. Connect to allowing the homeless explosion in cities, resulting in pandemics, and gene modified mosquitoes released in the tropics that can carry diseases they couldn't before after the "oops" breed with the other species...see a connection?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ pixelate 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    I was working with my city planning board in 2017 on the city's 20 year plan -- my involvement was as a citizen, not a planner. We were "asked" to insert a Climate Change blurb into our 20 year plan - a blurb that was, apparently, sent by the State Dept of Ecology to the sundry municipalities for inclusion in their 20 year plans. The blurb essentially began with the assumption that temperatures will be warmer in the 20 years ahead -- it then went on to list nine recommendations that were extremely vague -- one was to the effect that the city will be encouraging the use of materials on roofs that promote energy conservation. The devil is in the interpretation ... will this mean that the city planners of the future will be able to dictate the types of roofs on new homes and businesses a few years down the road? Will we be required to purchase solar panels? That will be up to the planners to decide. I voiced my opinion on the matter in that Climate Change is not a "settled science" ... that the 97% consensus figure was bogus and that there is evidence to the contrary that the temperature will be warming. No matter. The blurb was injected into the 20 year plan. And so I imagine, 5-10 years from now, when all of the govt buildings in our city are mandated to have 'clean solar' installed and other costly measures are implemented by fiat ... the citizens will wonder why the city budget is busted ... we can look back and see how we got into this mess. Sh** never just happens. It is designed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wmiranda 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Climate is complex. Even today, we can't predict which way a hurricane is going without 15 spaghetti noodle models of possible ways. Tornadoes... don't even go there.
    I'm not an expert, by far. However, I can make up stuff as well as the climate change experts can and certainly better than Ocasio-Cortez. Nevertheless, I have come to certain conclusions on my own based on my readings. The world is not going to end on some fictitious date in ten years due to some climatic catastrophe as they predict. At least for the last four generations, those generations have been brainwashed into believing a doomsday date that has come and gone. Every new generation, the cabal horrifies that youth into believing they will all die unless they do the cabal's bidding. CO2 in the atmosphere is such a small amount and effects so minimal that they are of no significance or consequence to climate, contrary to the cabal's alarm. And, the sun is the #1 factor in any climate change. Control the sun and you have my attention.
    Finally, Climate Change cabal is a global organize crime syndicate. They lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, extort and commit fraud. It's a global money grab for those that support it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ben_C 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Tell a lie enough times and it becomes accepted as the truth. Sadly, the youth of today believe the lie. They don't understand that it is about control - not climate. Can you say "Hunger Games"? They will realize, perhaps too late, that their world will be that of Atlas Shrugged. I won't have to experience it, but my kids and grand-kids will.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Reliable data notes 1934 in the dustbowl years as the driest, hottest year to date in Oklahoma, but now we're being told that the drought of 2010 was the driest, hottest year "in history" for the state. That fable matches with the post.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Best real climate change explanation was in this scientific presentation: https://youtu.be/NYoOcaqCzxo

    The author explains that the current climate models are wrong because they fail to differentiate between the actual mechanisms involved and attribute to human activity things which are actually cosmological.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      Exactly, interesting to note the UN release that says they will add in solar and cosmic ray forcing into the models and causes list. They have failed with the man did it thing....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Climate is changing, and it always has. The question is "Do we understand it, and can we support that humans (really just CO2) are causing it?"

    Most, people, even smart ones, don't understand the most basic facts, and these facts are well-obscured by the media and climate "scientists".

    FACT - The CO2 we have as a greenhouse gas is not capable of significant change in temperature. All climate scientists know this. Try to get one to say it.
    FACT - No model we have represents temperature change, without an effect of water vapor, and this effect is not based on physics, but heuristics.

    We just don't know, and legislating on that basis is wrong.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Russpilot 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Well, can't you see that's the last act of a desperate man? We don't care if it's the First Act of Henry the Fifth! We're leaving!

    Sorry, something about this made me think of this line from Blazing Saddles.
    Climate change lemmings are grasping for any straws that they can find as they go on indoctrinating all of the little brains full of mush in our "schools".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Just like "1984", rewrite, or wipe out history and make it up. A few hundred years even is not enough to follow the patterns of the Sun and Earth, one needs go back hundreds of thousands of years to see patterns. We have to stop what Gorbachev put in our schools, the green religion. Idiot teachers let kis skip school to protest, kids who are not even taught real science. The gov. school system is destroying our kids and country.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Laughing...they just through out the Dalton Minimum...weather patterns should be saved in at least 400 year increments. Important cycles are 100 year, 200 year and 400 grand solar max and minimums...not to mention the recently found 12,000 year reset cycle.
    Within those cycles we have: Solar Maximum and Solar Minimum trading off every 11 years, then we get the 100year and 200 year surprises...like the Dalton minimum about 30 years in length. Then the 400 Grand Solar min/max year cycle that has an overall effect upon the 11 year cycles within it. Example: We are coming out of a 400 Grand Maximum cycle and will soon, (after this next solar max cycle) going into a 400 year Minimum Cycle: like the Maunder Minimum, Younger Dryas etc.

    No, you can't get a proper outlook using 3 data points. One must consider Solar Cycles foremost along with Solar particle forcing, (which will soon be added to the climate modeling-believe it or not) ...but even then, they will still not have the whole picture, there is a lot more that needs to be considered.

    In short, Mankind's activities, carbon/methane, nor environmental pollution has absolutely no effect on Climate cycles.

    It's the SUN,.. SILLY!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Again, there are simple proofs.
    1) Great Lakes were formed by Glaciers that melted. Proof that the Glaciers came down to NORTHERN OHIO at one time. THEY Melted before there were SUVs.
    2) The graph in the link shows that the EARTH has spent FAR MORE time WAY ABOVE the IPCC warning line (Red Dotted) than it has below.
    3) During those times, we've had BOTH Warming Periods and Ice Ages. No RUNAWAY Heat as predicted, if we go above the IPCC number...

    That's All I need. It's 1) Common Sense, and 2) A refutation by historical data.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    I am weary of hearing about climate change. It seems everyone has an opinion on it and I don't understand a bit of any of it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      Well, the reality is, data says the earth is cooling, and there are several things at work (solar minimum (which may be "grand" or not, no good data either way yet), the possible pole shift, the increase in cosmic rays due to reduced radiation shielding due to said solar minimum, and changes in circulation patterns due to the solar minimum). All that is provable if you use observed data from the last few hundred years, and predictions based on it seem valid. For example, Montana is about to become snowbound, with up to 4 feet of snow in the mountains, sort of hard to fit into the "no snow we all die" model.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Who needs 100 years of old used up climate data when so much smarter than us government funded scientists now impose them new "normal" thingies into the equation, each spanning the length of a whole generation? Who needs to study that old discarded century when a periodic 30-year new normal has reference points that are far more concise and ascertainable?
    Yes, such generational science can generationably be used to generate the climate change rationalized why of why we shall all die in 12 (no, it's about 11 now) years from carbon asphyxiation. This is why we must not be too racist to trust the Squad and to dump Trump to save the planet. By the way, people, don't you dare breed. Since it is likely too late to save the planet anyhow, making babies is tantamount to child abuse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo