Canadian researchers fudge the climate data

@garysibi (702)
Chicago, Illinois
September 22, 2019 11:31am CST
The facts didn't fit in with the climate change alarmist scenario so there was only one thing to do, change the facts. The researchers ignored any measured temperatures from historical data that disproved their alarmist ideology. More evidence that their agenda is more cult-like than scientific.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/canadas_global_warming_models_threw_out_actual_historical_data_and_substituted_models_of_what_the_temperature_emshouldem_have_been.html
2 people like this
2 responses
@CarolDM (203452)
• Nashville, Tennessee
22 Sep 19
Shaking my head at this one.
1 person likes this
@garysibi (702)
• Chicago, Illinois
22 Sep 19
It's not the first time this was done, either. There have been at least two other cases where the data was fudged to fit what the "scientists" wanted to prove. Yet the brainwashed continue to march in lockstep.
1 person likes this
@topffer (42156)
• France
22 Sep 19
This article is an insult to the intelligence of the reader. When you study any set of data to do a modelling, there are always some elements in the package that do not enter in the model, it does not mean that the modelling is not good. And 2) if a set of data is not important enough you cannot model anything, and it seems (I am not a climatologist) that it was the case here for pre-1950 data, there is no fraud involved.
@garysibi (702)
• Chicago, Illinois
22 Sep 19
Bull. It's called fixing the data and climate alarmists are well-known for doing it. By the way, the link to this article was posted on Twitter by a professional meteorologist. Climate change alarmism is a scam.
@topffer (42156)
• France
22 Sep 19
@garysibi What you call "fixing the data" is what I call "scientific rigor" ;1) it is common to eliminate old data because they are often unreliable ; 2) They offered 24 historical models, not 1... If it is a scam, it is supported by 99% of the scientists, the only thing that is discussed by 2 or 3% is that the origin of the climatic change would not be due to humans but to natural causes.
@garysibi (702)
• Chicago, Illinois
22 Sep 19
@topffer No. It's cheating. It's realizing that the data says the opposite of what you want it to say so you correct facts to support lies. That is not science.