New Video : Very High Probability Of Fraud By Climate Scientists

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to New Video : Very High Probability Of Fraud By Climate Scientists

  1. Jackson says:

    Thank you.
    Please keep up the good work!

  2. arn says:

    The best thing that can happen are deminishing extremes as balanced weather is the best for the people and environment.

    Than you usually get more vegetation growth and can harvest more crop.

    But i guess this does not fit the official agenda
    as you need “extremes” to ‘convince’ people to pay a world wide tax

  3. Rud Istvan says:

    This draft is being savaged on a lot of fronts and for a lot of its ‘conclusions’. I sent a note to Trump and Pruitt yesterday proving that the attribution section is junk science, and posted a shorter version (with a reference to a previous WUWTguest post longer version) as a comment at WUWT under Paul Homewoods guest post attack on the same graph you discredited so ably. His different attack compared additional charts in the 3rd draft summary but disappeared in the 5th draft summary, which directly contradict the mathematically false graph that remained.

  4. Squidly says:

    Outstanding as usual .. and breathtaking as usual. I am jaw dropped on the floor how blatantly, in your face, fraudulent these people have become. AMAZING!

  5. Philip says:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170808145933.htm
    Is the acceleration in sea level rises in the said model actual data or “estimate” based on a statistical model? Please comment.

  6. RAH says:

    BTW. After so far naming two storms that would never have been given a name a few years ago, the National Hurricane Center has come out with it’s usual revision of it’s 2017 hurricane forecast.

    As one would expect they have upped the probability of a greater than active season there by bringing their forecast closer to what the guys at Weatherbell.com had in the first place. Currently there is only one feature in the Atlantic that has any possibility of developing and it’s August 10th.

    We’re quickly coming up on what is traditionally the height of the season. late August through September being the most active period of development. So far two named storms, neither reaching hurricane strength at any time, have has noticeable effects on the lower 48.

    I’m beginning to wonder if I was wrong to believe that this would be the year when our record hiatus of no majors striking our shores would end because there hasn’t been a major anywhere in the Atlantic yet.

    • Andy DC says:

      Yes, naming storms is a highly subjective matter. It would appear that every time they find the slightest hint of a circulation and they can find a squall with a 35 mph wind, they give it a name.

      Since the Hurricane Center is a NOAA agency, they are no doubt going to embellish and overname these storms for attention and propaganda purposes. Thus it is far better to use landfalling storms as the real indicator of storm activity. If there are no land stations with sustained winds over 74 mph at landfall, whatever they claim to be a hurricane is not really a hurricane.

  7. RAH says:

    BTW total ACE for the NH is only 88% of average for this time of year.
    http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php

  8. Colorado Wellington says:

    Most of you probably know that Pierre Gosselin posted Tony’s video presentation at his NoTricksZone site:

    Expert Software Engineer Calls Level Of Fraud In Leaked US Gov Climate Report “Sickening”

    None of Pierre’s usual house trolls have reported for duty yet but I find it interesting that even good people are still willing to make excuses for the fraudsters. This example is a comment from Pierre’s site:

    Rather than fraud, a better explanation is motivated reasoning. They believe their own anti-CO2 models so much (CO2 causes 90% of climate change) that they cannot imagine any other cause of surface temperature changes. So they change the past to match their models. As Javier says here: http://euanmearns.com/making-the-measurements-match-the-models-part-2-sea-surface-temperatures/

    Here is a repost of my response:

    Mark, the cheaters jumped the shark long time ago. I agree that motivated reasoning is a common occurrence in human affairs but these people are not stupid despite saying some very stupid things at times.

    By now they know very well they have a problem and their beliefs have nothing to do with it anymore. I’m sure you know that business modeling and forecasting is routinely used across all industries and it is being constantly updated as real data keeps coming in.

    If instead of revising and updating the financial models the CEOs of banks and public companies used “motivated reasoning” and changed the reported past data to match their beliefs and expectations, they’d be all in jail.

    Have you ever heard of Enron? Trust me, the executives were highly motivated but how in the world was their conduct not fraud?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *