“NOAA fabricates temperature data for more than 30 percent of the 1,218 USHCN reporting stations that no longer exist.” 🔥 The whole climate story is a scam from beginning to end.

submitted by Questionable from (zerohedge.com)

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ShoahKahn 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

The claim:

"97% of scientists agree on man-made global warming"

The deboonk:

  • claim based on 12,000 papers
  • 7,930 had no position on the subject, either way
  • 3,896 claimed that humans "contributed to" climate change (how much they "contributed" was not specified)
  • 78 said humans did not contribute to climate change
  • 40 remained undecided
  • the 7,930 papers without a position on the subject, were discarded
  • 12,000 - 7,930 - 78 - 40 = 3,778 => 3,778 / 3,896 x 100 = "97%" 👌😏

🖰 https://realclimatescience.com/

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A BRILLIANT deboonk.

[–]Iswearbymyfloralhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Im fucking shocked

[–]YoMamma 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I downloaded the article. Nothing in it indicates that data was 'manufactured'.

These claims of fabricated data are entirely from Lt. Col. John Shewchuk, but no source is provided as evidence. (Typical for zerohedge.com, which is a disinformation website.)

Who is Lt. Col. John Shewchuk? According to his Twitter page, he's devoted to refuting causes of climate change, spreading that disinformation across several networks he belongs to.

It's John Shewchuk who fabricates data.

As usual, zerohedge.com is spreading disinformation.

Who does this benefit? Who pays for this? Guess.

[–]PsychoTranyRedditMod 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting.

I always suspect agendas when logical fallacies are used.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

No your not. 〠

[–]xoenix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I remember when satellite measurements were supposed to settle everything, but then they started to diverge from the rising ground temperatures, so they started to conjecture about "missing heat."

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240221213839.htm claims Russia as a whole doesn't benefit from climate change. Who really benefits from denying climate change? Just some oil and gas people? If the world is on fire and they are universally hated, what do they want to do with their money when they can't visit Venice anymore (because it is under water), visit the Rocky Mountains (because of extreme winds), or ski (because there is no snow anymore)?

It's a scientific fact that lowering CO2 concentrations is good for people (or more specifically higher concentrations are bad for concentration). As such, who can possibly be against that? Whether or not it heats up the planet (spoiler alert from the 1890s: it does), is not even relevant.