Oh good, Fox News, critical thinkers that they are, are DETERMINED to bring you the truth about so-called "climate change," which may or may not be real given that "some people" continue to point out that it is just a "theory." As we all know, if "some people" believe something, it is worthy of including in a news story, for "balance":
Seriously, what the Fox do they gain from this sort of bullshit? Are they just cashing checks from the Koch suckers, or is it simply a matter of telling their brain-dead viewers what they want to hear?
"NOAA has made so many adjustments to the data it's ridiculous," Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
The data are wrong, because the same damned thermometer hasn't been in the same exact damned place for 100 years ... but if you make any adjustments, well, that's just ridiculous.
Says the fringe scientist and <a href="http:\/\/www.skepticalscience.com\/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm" target="_blank">professional libertarian wingnut. </a> And signer of the &quot;Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,&quot; whatever the fuck that might be. (Sadly, <a href="http:\/\/www.cornwallalliance.org\/blog\/item\/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming\/" target="_blank">I&#039;m not making that up</a> -- evidently, the Xtards have their own faith-based thermometers.) But hey, you&#039;re not &quot;fair and balanced&quot; unless you give actual science and blatant idiocy equal time.
Interesting that adjusting the measured temperature <i>downward</i> is a red flag for the denialists. (Never mind that the trend is obvious even if you drop all the adjusted data.)
They&#039;re not actually <i>inconsistent</i>, as their objection is to downward revisions in older data, which does tend to increase slope of the warming trend. But their &quot;analysis&quot; pretty much consists of &quot;these revisions make the situation look worse, so they must be faked, argle blargle&quot;.
Spencer is actually near the apex of scientific credibility among deniers. He has a real job in climate science, and he has published a number of peer-reviewed (although not universally agreed with) papers in support of his own hypotheses. He admits that warming does seem to be going on, but disagrees about the rate and the degree to which it is anthropogenic. He advances his own model, which deals with cloud formation and its effect on re-radiation, and has published predictions based on this model which involved substantially lower warming than does the IPCC model.
Thus far, he could be seen as holding to a minority position, but one which will be subject to further experimental testing. Really, this is how physical science is supposed to work.
But then, he is also a post-collegiate convert to intelligent design, and he&#039;s a bit quick to accuse his majority-position colleagues of indulging in a profit-driven conspiracy when they happen to disagree with him. And, of course, they generally think he&#039;s wrong.
yum. thanks mumblety! giving this a try as mr. fuf ALWAYS has nutella sitting around.
Wish I could roar MENDACITY as well as Burl Ives.
Seriously, what the Fox do they gain from this sort of bullshit? Are they just cashing checks from the Koch suckers, or is it simply a matter of telling their brain-dead viewers what they want to hear?
Those left-wing socialist muslin thermometers have been lying, for the past 124 years, because Obama. Everybody knows this, because Fox.
&quot;NOAA has made so many adjustments to the data it&#039;s ridiculous,&quot; Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
The data are wrong, because the same damned thermometer hasn&#039;t been in the same exact damned place for 100 years ... but if you make any adjustments, well, that&#039;s just ridiculous.
Says the fringe scientist and <a href="http:\/\/www.skepticalscience.com\/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm" target="_blank">professional libertarian wingnut. </a> And signer of the &quot;Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,&quot; whatever the fuck that might be. (Sadly, <a href="http:\/\/www.cornwallalliance.org\/blog\/item\/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming\/" target="_blank">I&#039;m not making that up</a> -- evidently, the Xtards have their own faith-based thermometers.) But hey, you&#039;re not &quot;fair and balanced&quot; unless you give actual science and blatant idiocy equal time.
Sigh. Here we G&ouml;del again...
I&#039;ve heard that the Taliban exhale CO2, the sneaky bastards.
Some People love money more than their fellow Amercians.
Interesting that adjusting the measured temperature <i>downward</i> is a red flag for the denialists. (Never mind that the trend is obvious even if you drop all the adjusted data.)
Relatives of the 17,000 who died in the last European heat wave will also be relieved by this &quot;news&quot; &quot;reporting&quot;.
I&#039;m saving up my Nutella, for shipment back to France as grey-market goods.
I tried to get myself a semi-automatic thermometer, for freedumb and protecshun, but the dealer said he was sold out.
They will continue to <strike>deny it</strike> pay people to deny it, until the very day and hour that promoting it becomes profitable.
They&#039;re not actually <i>inconsistent</i>, as their objection is to downward revisions in older data, which does tend to increase slope of the warming trend. But their &quot;analysis&quot; pretty much consists of &quot;these revisions make the situation look worse, so they must be faked, argle blargle&quot;.
Spencer is actually near the apex of scientific credibility among deniers. He has a real job in climate science, and he has published a number of peer-reviewed (although not universally agreed with) papers in support of his own hypotheses. He admits that warming does seem to be going on, but disagrees about the rate and the degree to which it is anthropogenic. He advances his own model, which deals with cloud formation and its effect on re-radiation, and has published predictions based on this model which involved substantially lower warming than does the IPCC model.
Thus far, he could be seen as holding to a minority position, but one which will be subject to further experimental testing. Really, this is how physical science is supposed to work.
But then, he is also a post-collegiate convert to intelligent design, and he&#039;s a bit quick to accuse his majority-position colleagues of indulging in a profit-driven conspiracy when they happen to disagree with him. And, of course, they generally think he&#039;s wrong.
<a href="http:\/\/youtu.be\/UQ21aI374-w" target="_blank">Okay.</a>