If The Data Doesn’t Match Theory, Change The Data

Professional climate fraudsters claim that Greenland is losing ice 600% faster than predicted.


As of yesterday, the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) showed Greenland surface mass gain for the winter at a record high. This is a direct contradiction to the lies being spread by climate alarmists.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

The DMI data was being widely cited by skeptics as evidence against global warming fraud, so today DMI changed the graph. They changed their baseline dates, and no longer show 2017 as being a record high.

We have seen this identical story hundreds of times. Climate data being altered to avoid criticism from global warming alarmists. Apparently DMI doesn’t want to have gunfire directed at their office, like John Christy and Roy Spencer had after Bill Nye’s “March for Junk Science.”

Climate alarmists are Brownshirt thugs. They don’t represent science. They represent the darkest side of human evil.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Comments (3)

  • Avatar

    Amy Feldin

    |

    “Climate change data is being altered to avoid criticism from global warming alarmists”. Yes, climate change data is changing. But this doesn’t prove that it is not happening, or that scientists are not sure of the trends. As scientists collect more data, and as time reveals itself, patterns may change. Everything that is predicted in the future as data is simply a best representation of the current trend and where scientists predict it will go. However, things change in a given period of time, such as average temperatures, weather patterns, and global CO2 emissions. Catastrophic events may alter their predictions, and will need to be updated. When data is changed, it is typically an improvement based on understanding and scientific knowledge, not uncertainty or shame.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Etrius

      |

      @AMY FELDIN

      the problem that many are seeing is that climate scientists are taking data, and making personal, subjective, non-mathematically normalized decisions on which outliers to eliminate in order to see trends. There has already been sites that show the Archives of screenshots of NASA from years back that have graphs with adjusted means which indicate a sharper increase in temperatures.

      Now if this is done because there is legitimate reason to believe that a temperature anomaly is causing fluctuations, i can understand the rationale to eliminate such data for future predictive models: but when you publish EMPIRICAL data, you must show it, pimples blemishes and all. no self-respecting scientist publishes data with all the faults hidden or deleted.

      data should not be changed, predictions should. the specific example cited here with ice sheet mass is them going out into the field, and using a variety of different measuring techniques to obtain a specific number, grounded in reality and in truth, of which shall be used a sample and within reasonable doubt a model to analyze the overall trend of changes in ice mass.

      now the fact that so many days later they have gone back and changed that number, is entirely horrifying as someone who is fully committed to investigating climate change. they could announce a report questioning the validity of the sample size, and making the public aware to the fact that they don’t believe their measurements were anything more than an anomaly, but that did not occur:

      instead, they adjusted the numbers without any such notifications. clearly they cannot go back in time and remeasure the ice mass, and all these revisions have no basis in the actual original measuring techniques. This blatant manipulation of raw data has occurred in MANY areas of the scientific community, beyond just this argument surrounding climate change: many conservative scientists have been viewed as guilty of this with LESS evidence than the manipulation we see here.

      Of course this is the rise of the cult of science. People forget that science is skepticism, and that a complete devotion to a man with a degree is by no means what science entails. There are a multitude of reports coming out now, about the failed nature of peer-review systems, how colleges actually are operating, and how getting published in journals is purely based off of money rather than content.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The headline ” If The Data Doesn’t Match Theory , Change The Data ” , is the UN definition for the scientific method . Just like the weasel words they whipped up
    to exclude natural variables from the definition of causes of climate change and just made it human sources . Funny though how the main street media some how
    either missed that or is just too busy playing along .( Exception Tucker on Fox ) .
    Thank God that puffed up ego O Reilly is gone . Fox and the Washington Times are at least trying to provide viewers with the “Deplorable, Deniers , Real Scientist views .
    Climate change has always occurred , it’s currently gradually warming and so we are extremely fortunate but the earth having a fever is a $trillion dollar con game .
    Put the Paris non-binding cash dispenser “Agreement” to a vote like it should have been and end the world’s largest highway robbery hoax . Easiest $Trillion ever saved and if Congress can’t get their head around that the swamp will be as full as ever in
    4 years . Mr. Trump was right … this is the last chance to turn things around .
    Please keep the promise Mr. Trump you won’t get a better chance .

    Reply

Leave a comment