# Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger



## bripat9643 (Jan 31, 2015)

Just remember this whenever you see some AGW cultist claiming 2014 was the Nth warmest year on record:

_Forget Climategate this global warming scandal is much bigger - Breitbart

Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world’s leading global warming experts – say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State – and they studied your records for a moment and said: “This isn’t right.” What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.

You’d be gobsmacked, would you not?

Yet, incredible though it may seem, the scenario I’ve just described is more or less exactly analogous to what has happened to the raw data from weather stations all over the world.

Take the ones in Paraguay – a part of the world which contributed heavily to NASA GISS’s recent narrative about 2014 having been the “hottest year on record.”

If it wasn’t for the diligence of amateur investigators like retired accountant Paul Homewood, probably no one would care, not even Paraguayans, what has been going on with the Paraguayan temperature records. But Homewood has done his homework and here, revealed at his site Notalotofpeopleknowthat, is what he found.

He began by examining Paraguay’s only three genuinely rural weather stations. (ie the ones least likely to have had their readings affected over the years by urban development.)

All three – at least in the versions used by NASA GISS for their “hottest year on record” claim – show a “clear and steady” upward (warming) trend since the 1950s, with 2014 shown as the hottest year at one of the sites, Puerto Casado.

Judging by this chart all is clear: it’s getting hotter in Paraguay, just like it is everywhere else in the world.





Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

But wait. How did the Puerto Casado chart look before the temperature data was adjusted? Rather different as you see here:





Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Perhaps, though, Puerto Casada was an anomaly?

Nope. Similar adjustments, in the same direction, appear to have been made to the two other rural sites.













Ah. But there was surely some innocent explanation for this, Homewood surmised. Perhaps the rural stations were wildly out of kilter with the urban stations and had been ‘homogenised’ accordingly.

Except, guess what?_

_


















_





_
OK. So why am I making you look at all these charts? Because seeing is believing._​


----------



## Porker (Jan 31, 2015)

When dead grass/weedy fields burst into flames from spontaneous combustion we'll realize there may be some global warming happening....IF we are still alive at that point. Otherwise, we've already known those phony ass numbers have been literally CREATED from scratch by the agoreist society.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 31, 2015)

Porker said:


> When dead grass/weedy fields burst into flames from spontaneous combustion we'll realize there may be some global warming happening....IF we are still alive at that point. Otherwise, we've already known those phony ass numbers have been literally CREATED from scratch by the agoreist society.



You'll notice that the holy brethren of the AGW cult never respond to threads like this one, but they'll start a parallel thread saying 2014 was the third warmest year on record..


----------



## Porker (Jan 31, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Porker said:
> 
> 
> > When dead grass/weedy fields burst into flames from spontaneous combustion we'll realize there may be some global warming happening....IF we are still alive at that point. Otherwise, we've already known those phony ass numbers have been literally CREATED from scratch by the agoreist society.
> ...



I noticed. Never fail to notice.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 31, 2015)

OK all you AGW kookburgers, how do you explain these data discrepancies away?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 31, 2015)

they cant... it would expose them all as the liars they are.


----------



## Crick (Jan 31, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Porker said:
> 
> 
> > When dead grass/weedy fields burst into flames from spontaneous combustion we'll realize there may be some global warming happening....IF we are still alive at that point. Otherwise, we've already known those phony ass numbers have been literally CREATED from scratch by the agoreist society.
> ...



I'll respond.  You and anyone else that expects to find objective science or accurate, factual information in Breitbart is simply fooking stupid.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Porker said:
> ...



The irony impaired AGW cult and their comments.


----------



## MarathonMike (Feb 1, 2015)

It's amazing how consistently the Liberal response never addresses the issue, they just attack and dismiss the source. Sure is easier that way, eh?


----------



## Vigilante (Feb 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Porker said:
> ...



Personal attack with NOTHING of intellect to back it up.... Damn, where is your Government GRANT CHECK for your climate study.... the study you do on the internet, WITHOUT FACTS?.....Did they send it to Al Gore again????


----------



## Vigilante (Feb 1, 2015)




----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

MarathonMike said:


> It's amazing how consistently the Liberal response never addresses the issue, they just attack and dismiss the source. Sure is easier that way, eh?


Learned it from the Right who reject all sources not biased Right. Funny thing is, the Right will not tolerate their own rationalizations when they bite them in their hypocritical asses!


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing how consistently the Liberal response never addresses the issue, they just attack and dismiss the source. Sure is easier that way, eh?
> ...







How about addressing the OP.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...


The OP has no credibility to address, you know that. It even admits the "scenario" is imaginary.
"_the scenario I’ve just described is more or less"_
Quite a bit less!!!


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



What "scenario?"  The OP contains the actual data before and after it is "homogenized."  There is no "scenario."  Are you claiming the data posted is a lie?


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 1, 2015)




----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 1, 2015)




----------



## Kosh (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yet the AGW cult will still drone on about their religious propaganda and continue to deny real science..


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I quoted them admitting it was made up. BigotBarf "homogenized" the data, like the Right always does. Post the data and prove me wrong. You can't because Bigot posted no data that they didn't manufacture, so all data depends on the credibility of BigotBarf, and they have none!


----------



## Kosh (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The irony impaired far left/AGW cult members and their comments..


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

Kosh said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


That's not data, post the data.


----------



## Kosh (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It was posted..

However not one of the AGW cult members can seem to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate. Even in the modern era since the 90's no one can seem to find that data..


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No, NASA homogenized the data.  All the graphs can be found on NASA's website if you just follow the links posted with them.  NASA is the source of all the data.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It has already been posted.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

Kosh said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


No it wasn't. What was posted was BigotBarf's admitted homogenization scenario of the data. Everything posted came from BigotBarf, not the climate stations. BigotBarf has no credibility. You would never accept anything from PMSNBC as a source, would you?


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Nope.  Those graphs all come from the NASA website.  Just follow the links and you'll see.


----------



## Kosh (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So no link to the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate..

Well once again proving that AGW cult runs on their religious narrative..


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


But the "adjusted" graph has a LOWER number, meaning came first, than the "raw" graph.

For example, the Puerto Casado "raw" graph has 308860860004 0 km at the top and the "adjusted" has 308860860000 0 km. Why would the "adjusted" have a lower number if it came after the "raw?"

If anything GISS is lowering the numbers!!!


----------



## Kosh (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well if that is the case then how do they keep going up when reported by the AGW loyalists?


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




I am confused about which data you want. the graphs are from GISS, if I remember that article correctly.

there are lots of links and such at All Of Paraguay s Temperature Record Has Been Tampered With US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I think my last comment there is hilarious! NOAA/NCDC has Pilar Paraquay  as being in Argentina!!!! hahahahaha


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Well if that is the case then how do they keep going up when reported by the AGW loyalists?


Because even after adjusting the temperatures DOWN, as the number sequence at the top of the graphs show, 2014 was still the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement. If the "real" raw data were used, it would be even warmer!!!


----------



## Kosh (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Well if that is the case then how do they keep going up when reported by the AGW loyalists?
> ...



Wrong! As you push the AGW religious propaganda!

UK Met Office says 2014 was NOT the hottest year ever due to 8216 uncertainty ranges 8217 of the data Watts Up With That


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




"
*Station ID Codes*
GHCND PA000086086
GHCNM 30886086000
GSOD 860860-99999
HADCRU 860860
ICAO SGLV
USAF 860860
WMO 86086
WMSSC 860860
WWR 86086
"

that number is a station code. the last digit probably describes which kind of data it is


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> there are lots of links and such at All Of Paraguay s Temperature Record Has Been Tampered With US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Your graphs do the same thing. The "old" graphs have higher numbers, meaning came after, the "new" graphs. The data is actually being adjusted down at these individual stations and yet even after these reductions the adjusted data still shows warming globally. The real raw data shows even more warming.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Then the changed last digit means you deniers are dishonestly comparing different "kinds" of data as if they are the same. Why am I not surprised?!!!


----------



## Kosh (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Wrong!


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2015)

ed- you should get up to speed on this story.

homogenization has turned a cooling trend into a warming trend. Cowtan says its because of a calibration error. Zeke says the BEST breakpoints are necessary, GISS doesnt answer inquiries from peons. at least watch Cowtan's video at Skeptical Science, if only to find out that the w


edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Ed-  the graphs clearly state raw and adjusted. The question here is whether the homogenized adjustments are justified, and when will the public get the explanation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 1, 2015)

Paraguay is much smaller than the US, even if the data is off there, the overall warming in the world put 2014 in the top four warmest years on record. 1998, super El Nino, 2005, seven years later, moderate El Nino, five years later, 2010, moderate El Nino, four years later, ENSO neutral, 2014.

The only scandal is that people in this nation are so scientifically illiterate that they will accept WUWT and Briebart over real scientists.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> ed- you should get up to speed on this story.
> 
> homogenization has turned a cooling trend into a warming trend. Cowtan says its because of a calibration error. Zeke says the BEST breakpoints are necessary, GISS doesnt answer inquiries from peons. at least watch Cowtan's video at Skeptical Science, if only to find out that the w
> 
> ...


And it is you dishonest deniers who did the mislabeling. Clearly the "adjusted" mislabeled graphs came earlier in the series than the mislabeled "raw" graphs. Admit it, you deniers got caught lying yet again. When will deniers admit the truth to the public?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

Kosh said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


When a denier says I'm wrong, obviously I'm RIGHT!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

Now that I have caught the deniers lowering the temperatures from the raw data, future blink graphs will delete the ID code number at the top!!!


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2015)

Ed never follows through on his thoughts. He declares 'anomalies' as the only 'scientific' way to deal with temperatures. and that is true when you are adding together trends from different stations to get a regional or global trend.


edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ed- you should get up to speed on this story.
> ...



raw-    Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


why don't you check any of this out for yourself?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> Ed never follows through on his thoughts. He declares 'anomalies' as the only 'scientific' way to deal with temperatures. and that is true when you are adding together trends from different stations to get a regional or global trend.
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> ...


You are simply mislabeling the raw as adjusted. Nothing at either link indicates raw or otherwise.


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Ed never follows through on his thoughts. He declares 'anomalies' as the only 'scientific' way to deal with temperatures. and that is true when you are adding together trends from different stations to get a regional or global trend.
> ...




are you dense or lazy? or both?

go to the GISS station selector. you can google it for yourself or just hit this link.  Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data

type in Puerto Casado, or just click on the map in the area of Paraguay(edit- and choose Puerto Casado out of the options of course). the graph that it retrieves will look like this-






does that look like the raw version or the adjusted version? does it have a zero at the end or not? this is the homogenized version that doesnt have that pesky drop at 1970


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> raw-    Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
> 
> adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
> 
> ...


Here is the ACTUAL "adjusted" temperature analysis for the link you call "raw" with the ID 308860860004 comparing apples to apples, or in this case comparing adjusted and raw data from the ID ending in 4 for both cases.






http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860004&dt=1&ds=2

You get there for both graphs by using this link below and selecting the second pull down for your "raw" link and the third pull down for my "cleaning and homogeneity adjusted" link for the Puerto Casado station.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data Based on GHCN v2

Now admit your fellow deniers were being completely dishonest when they claim that the graph with the ID ending on 0 was the adjusted version of the raw data ending in ID 4.
And ask yourself, why does your side have to ALWAYS lie?!!!!!


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Paraguay is much smaller than the US, even if the data is off there, the overall warming in the world put 2014 in the top four warmest years on record. 1998, super El Nino, 2005, seven years later, moderate El Nino, five years later, 2010, moderate El Nino, four years later, ENSO neutral, 2014.
> 
> The only scandal is that people in this nation are so scientifically illiterate that they will accept WUWT and Briebart over real scientists.




is it even possible to find enough mistakes, inconsistencies, glaring errors, etc to get you off your excuse of 'it's only small piece of the puzzle, it doesnt matter'. 

NASA/NOAA actually thinks Pilar Paraguay is in Argentina! it's right on their website! how bad does the mistake have to be before you think it is worth investigating the cause?


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > raw-    Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
> ...




all you need to do to get me to apologize profusely is to show me a graph that looks like that with data going out to 2014


----------



## Darkwind (Feb 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Paraguay is much smaller than the US, even if the data is off there, the overall warming in the world put 2014 in the top four warmest years on record. 1998, super El Nino, 2005, seven years later, moderate El Nino, five years later, 2010, moderate El Nino, four years later, ENSO neutral, 2014.
> ...


It is interesting that they make the data available.  The question is, is the data the adjusted temperatures or the observed and recoreded temperature?  I don't know, do you?

Where can I get My hands on the actual recorded temperatures?  Not the adjusted ones, but the ones that an observer looked at and recorded.  Does this data even exist anymore?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Why? The link you provided as "raw" ending in ID 4 didn't go out to 2014, it went only to 2011. Why can't you admit your sources lied to you? I could put it back on you to show a "raw" data set ending in ID 0 going to 2014 that matches your "raw" graph.

Can you at least admit that the graph ending in ID 0 is a completely different data set from the graph with the ID ending in 4 and the two different data sets should not, in all honesty, be compared?


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 1, 2015)

Look at the responses from each and every one of the AGW crusaders!!!!

Answers the ? with 100% certainty..........."Why do they call it a 'religion'?"


duh


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




I am not sure how to respond to you. are we arguing over the definition of 'raw' or the definition of 'adjusted'?

GISSv2 gives an option for raw data. that is what was used as raw in the comparison. GISSv3 gives no option for raw data, only adjusted or homogenized. that is what was used as adjusted in the comparison.

the data since 2011 has been altered in such a way as to be unrecognizable by 2014. do you agree with that or not? Me and many others have pointed out that the data has been twisted far beyond what simple TOBS, station moves and equipment changes could produce. the actual thermometer readings have been put through a meat grinder and surprise, surprise hamburger came out. 

you say Im lying. so show me a data set that resembles the v2 data but goes out to 2014. are you actually trying to tell people here that there have not been huge changes? just because BEST and GISS and all the rest have come up with algorithms that force the 'homogenized' temperature records to match what they want to see, that doesnt mean that those new readings have any similarity to reality.

I actually think all the raw data is still there. the problem is getting access to it


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 1, 2015)

Need to make one thing perfectly clear.............

Every single one of the AGW devotee's in here is also a hard core progressive!! No matter what information comes out...........NO MATTER WHAT.......they will stick to the established narrative.

Why?

Because the entire environmental movement has always been devoted to one thing and one thing only = destroy the capitalistic system. AGW has never been about the "science". Anybody with half a brain and the ability to connect the dots will see that all their shit is anything but science. The bold predictions, based upon bogus models that fAiL ALL THE TIME!! The data manipulation. The rejection of ANYTHING that does not conform with the established narrative.

Think about it......if the science is so "settled"..........why are these people always changing the dynamics within the established narrative? The continuous bomb throwing ( the latest: global warming causes volcanos to erupt ).....the rigging of the data.

Does that sound like "science" to any of you??



Sustainable development is the goal, ie: wealth redistribution.........on the backs of the middle class by the way!!!

The Green Agenda


so fucking ghey


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> I am not sure how to respond to you. are we arguing over the definition of 'raw' or the definition of 'adjusted'?


No, we are arguing over comparing two different data sets with different ID numbers. At least I am, you are desperately trying to muddy the waters rather than to admit the dishonesty in comparing data sets with different ID numbers.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Porker said:
> ...



Caught cooking the books...again, so they blame accounting


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 1, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> Need to make one thing perfectly clear.............
> 
> Every single one of the AGW devotee's in here is also a hard core progressive!! No matter what information comes out...........NO MATTER WHAT.......they will stick to the established narrative.
> 
> ...



Right, that's the key. The AGWCult is brainwashed and it won't matter how many times their leaders are caught hiding the decline


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Well if that is the case then how do they keep going up when reported by the AGW loyalists?
> ...



The sequence number doesn't mean a thing.  If you go to the NASA website and look up the graph with the adjusted numbers you will get the graph with the same sequence number.


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure how to respond to you. are we arguing over the definition of 'raw' or the definition of 'adjusted'?
> ...




Are you saying we are comparing two different weather stations? Both graphs are from the same weather station as you can easily see by thee embedded ID number. 

Are you complaining about the fact that the 2011 version is different than the 2014 version? That is the point we are trying to make!!!!!!

Would you be happier if we labeled the two graphs by the year of their origin rather than raw and adjusted? Even though the graphs themselves are from options labeled 'raw' and 'adjusted'?


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Ed is in denial.  He simply can't admit to himself that the cult priests he worships have doctored the data, lied and conspired to perpetrate a giant hoax.


----------



## IanC (Feb 1, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




I think Ed is trying to split hairs in his effort to obfuscate the substantial change in how the data is processed now compared to just three years ago.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 1, 2015)

You would think that such a change of over 2 deg C would send up red flares or flags in these peoples minds that they are being lied too.  But they cant see how the forced changes these fools want to make, because of the doctored data, will affect them.  They are about to find out as many of the Coal fired generation taxes hit this month. My electricity bill is set to jump 30% due to the new taxation put in place by the progressives in the last 8 years of congress..


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


At this point the dumb act just doesn't cut it! You know I never said they were two different weather stations but two different NUMBERED data sets. 

You are the one claiming that the data ending in ID 0 is the adjusted version of the data ending in ID 4 and I have already shown you that there is already an adjusted version of the data set ending in ID 4 that is almost identical to the raw data ending in ID 4, and I pointed out the dishonesty in comparing a completely different data set as the adjusted data ending in ID 4. 

You have already admitted you do not have the raw data ending in ID 0, so any claims that it is the same as the raw data ending in ID 4 is contradicted by the fact that they have different ID numbers. In the data where we do have both the raw and adjusted versions, the ID number does not change, but in your adjusted and raw data the ID number does change and you have no good explanation for it, other than dishonesty.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


It is hardly splitting hairs when the data sets have two DIFFERENT ID numbers, and the obfuscation is the claim that they are the same in spite of having different IDs without proof. The undeniable fact that they have 2 different ID numbers screams out that they are NOT the same data sets and should not honestly be compared to each other.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> *Are you saying we are comparing two different weather stations?* Both graphs are from the same weather station as you can easily see by thee embedded ID number.


Except they both do not have the same ID number, one ends in 0 and the other ends in 4. But you may have stumbled onto something. I decided to check on what the difference was between GHCN v2 and GHCN v3 and found this:

*December 14, 2011:* GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (*combining different station records for the same location*, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc). See related figures.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Why don't you learn how to use the NASA website so you don't look like such a dumbass in denial.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I do know how to use the NASA website, I used it quire effectively to expose the lies in your OP.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Apparently not.  Otherwise you wouldn't be quacking so much about the differing IDs.  It would be absurd to expect to different charts to have the same ID.  However, both charts are for the same weather station.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 1, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It's worse than that. He acknowledges the data was adjusted because he was told it needed adjusting to fit the failed theory


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


No,if you could read you would have seen that they are from the same LOCATION, and not the same weather station as the different ID numbers prove.

I'll re-post what you ignored:

*December 14, 2011:* GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (*combining different station records for the same location*, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc). See related figures.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > *Are you saying we are comparing two different weather stations?* Both graphs are from the same weather station as you can easily see by thee embedded ID number.
> ...



Dumbass, no one said they had the same ID number.  We said they are both for the same weather station.  Why would two different graphs have the same ID number?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


But they are NOT from the same weather station, hence the different ID numbers, they are from the same LOCATION, Puerto Casado, but different stations.

Read this again;

*December 14, 2011:* GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (*combining different station records for the same location*, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc). See related figures.


----------



## IanC (Feb 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





rather than bicker endlessly with Ed I will just post up two graphs with the same number





http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_308860860000_0_0/station.gif , pre adjustment





http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_308860860000_14_0/station.gif , post adjustment

this is actually comparing just one data series (pre) to a combined series (post) but Ed insists he wants the ID number to be exactly the same. as anyone can see the 1951-1991 portions of the two graphs are wildly different.

for comparison, here is the combined pre-adjustment graph again-
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_308860860004_1_0/station.gif . does this look more like the first graph? or the second? I'll let people decide for themselves.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 2, 2015)

rigging the data is ghey


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 2, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> rigging the data is ghey


So is making shit up. Like they have done.  but the alarmists defend this lie with vigor...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing how consistently the Liberal response never addresses the issue, they just attack and dismiss the source. Sure is easier that way, eh?
> ...


 badda bing!!!!!


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing how consistently the Liberal response never addresses the issue, they just attack and dismiss the source. Sure is easier that way, eh?
> ...



Hmmmm . . . NASA is the source being used for this discussion.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 2, 2015)

News for the clueless and hard of hearing:  BREITBART IS STILL DEAD.


----------



## IanC (Feb 3, 2015)

WTF does Breitbart have to do with a story on how temperature history is being rewritten?


----------



## IanC (Feb 3, 2015)

I have looked at a lot of temperature stations around the world during this last week or so. there seems to be a distinct difference between GISS in the US and GISS in the ROW (rest of the world). I dont know if it because there is such a high density of data in the US that the same changes that occur in the ROW would cause a big outcry, or if the naturally small amount of warming in the US just doesnt set off the wildly spiraling adjustments found so often elsewhere.

John Daly was very prescient in storing a lot of station data here. What the Stations Say . this info is quite similar to the GISSv2 data available up to 2011. it is wildly different to GISSv3 data that has supplanted the earlier version as can easily be checked by pulling up the latest graph (or digital data) at Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data .

Berkeley Earth data is all adjusted to match 'regional expectations', since its inception. I havent seen any station that is even 2SD away from the 'normal value'.

two years ago I quipped that Hansen was jealous that Muller had a new toy in global temp adjustments, so he just developed his own similar pairwise homogenization algorithms. it seems quite likely that is exactly what he did. other places in the world seem to be following suit and Australia and New Zealand are having a difficult time explaining to their govts why the new temps are so different from the original records. everyone seems to be acting like teenagers and saying 'everyone else is doing it too'. it is time to bring in some adults to clean up the terrible mess in temperature data collection and collation.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 3, 2015)

These people.........these AGW devotee's. They are THE definition of what has become known as the"sheeple".


----------



## IanC (Feb 3, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> These people.........these AGW devotee's. They are THE definition of what has become known as the"sheeple".



No offense intended but I see the majority of both sides of the debate here more focused on the politics of AGW rather than the science behind it. Skeptics may indeed succeed in changing the paradigm but it should be the science that causes it, not how effectively we can call the other side names.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 4, 2015)

Lets face it.........we have gotten to a time in our history where progressives will do anything to promote their agenda. No lie is too big anymore for these people.


IanC said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > These people.........these AGW devotee's. They are THE definition of what has become known as the"sheeple".
> ...





Ian my friend.........heres the thing. As Ive pointed out in this forum a million times, its always going to be about the politics. Progressives had this locked up in the early 2000's and, as usual, did the overreach stunt with the draconian predictions and lost the public trust. People have tuned this stuff out.........the spectacular failure of Crap and Tax was the death knell. You cant base the future of America's economy on computer models. Too.......without massive subsidies, renewable energy dies.

The whole science debate will continue........but at least for the next few decades, it will be akin to a hobby for internet users. There will be zero significant impact on public policy and that is a great thing for all of us.( non-k00ks ).

Lastly.....the public is NEVER going to be moved by computer model predictions that back up the climate nutter predictions. That's well established by now. When people in Alaska are waterskiing in bikini's on lakes in mid-January, then the debate will get  out of the realm of internet banter.. Thats not flip........that's the way it is.


----------



## JoeNormal (Feb 4, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Just remember this whenever you see some AGW cultist claiming 2014 was the Nth warmest year on record:
> 
> _Forget Climategate this global warming scandal is much bigger - Breitbart
> 
> ...


Maybe you can explain where the unadjusted data came from.  I looked at the Puerto Casado data from the NASA GISS site.  

There are 3 different data sets they offer:  
1) GHCN v3 (adj) + SCAR data  
2) after removing suspicious records
3) after GISS homogeneity adjustment

They are looked very similar, they all displayed an upward trend, and none looked like the supposed raw data you showed.  How did that happen?


----------



## IanC (Feb 4, 2015)

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Just remember this whenever you see some AGW cultist claiming 2014 was the Nth warmest year on record:
> ...




Sure, no problem Joe. When you go to the GISS station selector, look for the the three small graphs and just under them is the line- 


> In response to various requests, we also provide access to the last release of the GHCN version 2 data; note that these data end in October 2011 and NCDC does not intend to extend or update the version 2 data.



click on the version 2 data and you will get  the same type of page but the pull down menu will be different. you can choose between raw, combined or homogenized (homogenized in a much less drastic fashion). this data up to 2011 is usually considerably different than version 3 data.


Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data Based on GHCN v2


----------



## elektra (Feb 8, 2015)

and the scandal gets bigger

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph



> *The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever*





> Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > These people.........these AGW devotee's. They are THE definition of what has become known as the"sheeple".
> ...


Ian, me being on the skeptic side of things, I have but one scientific question that I cannot get answered.  Until that one question is answered, any other discussion becomes purely political because the warmers cannot produce one scientific confirmation that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to climate.  None.  It is mathematically impossible based on the gas characteristics.  I don't need to take the discussion any other place until that one experiment is produced.  That's it.  I don't need to be a scientist, just a concerned human and US Citizen.  The rest of the discussion is purely the left politicizing it.  Not me. 

Then of course there are the posts you've provided to detail the altered data sets from observed events and yet, the left continues.  Again, I'm not trying to be a total arse, but I mean, let's call a spade a spade.  The fact is the left is the cause period, and the contributing presence of everything nonscientific.  Political and name calling.  Answer me this, why can't any of them debate thier claims civilly?  Why is Robert Kennedy out there blasting people for thinking differently.  I ask someone to show me a similar video from the skeptic's side.  Just one. And, Robert Jr. is not the only one on the left.  

The religion is the religion based on the left warmers end of story!!!


----------



## Wyld Kard (Feb 9, 2015)

Crick said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Porker said:
> ...


 
And you and any other nutjob that expects to find real science or accurate, factual information from the IPCC is simply fucking stupid.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> How about addressing the OP.



Westy, what's to address??? You want us to refute a shitload of charts that we can't possibly even begin to understand? All this nonsense based on what Paraguay has submitted? 

I'll address it, the world IS getting warmer; no, I don't believe that man has caused it.

Anyone that believes that the Earth is NOT getting warmer is an idiot.


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2015)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about addressing the OP.
> ...






M C once again, no one disagrees that the planet has gotten warmer.  It's been doing that for 14,000 years.  The question is man's impact on that warming.  The data shows that the theory of CO2 driving global temps has failed.  That means that the support for man having any effect whatsoever has likewise failed.  What the charts show is a systemic, and fraudulent, adjustment of the historical temperature records to hide the fact that my statement is true.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 10, 2015)




----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2015)

edthecynic said:


>










Yes, this little propaganda piece has been posted before, and you little climate faithful will always lap it up like the little puppies you are.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Yeah, every time you deniers are caught in your fake conspiracies with no evidence it must be propaganda on everyone else's part, it couldn't be you gullible SUCKERS lapping up the BS.


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...








"Fake" conspiracy?  The climate faithful are pretty bold in their fraud.  They're not trying to hide anything at all.  They are quite blatant and relying on the collective blindness of you all to get away with it.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 10, 2015)

Speaking of conspiracies, shouldn't this thread be moved to the conspiracy theories forum?  It seems to have been misplaced.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


The only climate fraud was done by deniers Spencer and Christy at UAH. Based on their fradulent satellite data, deniers have accused all the honest scientists of fraud when the honest data did not match Christy and Spencer's cooked numbers. After the two frauds were caught, the deniers simply doubled down on their fake conspiracy accusations.


----------



## westwall (Feb 11, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...








Then why do the climate faithful only start their Arctic ice record in 1979 instead of 1970 when it was being well documented?


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 11, 2015)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Erm, the arctic record goes back further than 1970.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## IanC (Feb 11, 2015)

The term 'conspiracy theory' has morphed into a new meaning. Now it means  I disagree with what you say but I cannot rebut it so I will just belittle the idea in hopes that it will go away.

How could using the same raw(ish) data to point out the drastic change in adjustments be considered a conspiracy theory? 

Are any of the warmists actually denying the information still actually posted on govt web sites? Does no one realize that replacing actual temp readings with 'expected readings' just leaves you with made up readings? Does no one realize that chopping up data series into pieces and reorganizing them to fit 'expectations' removes the underlying climate(30 year) signal?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 11, 2015)

IanC said:


> The term 'conspiracy theory' has morphed into a new meaning. Now it means  I disagree with what you say but I cannot rebut it so I will just belittle the idea in hopes that it will go away.
> 
> How could using the same raw(ish) data to point out the drastic change in adjustments be considered a conspiracy theory?
> 
> Are any of the warmists actually denying the information still actually posted on govt web sites? Does no one realize that replacing actual temp readings with 'expected readings' just leaves you with made up readings? Does no one realize that chopping up data series into pieces and reorganizing them to fit 'expectations' removes the underlying climate(30 year) signal?


Does anyone other than deniers believe that UNCALIBRATED raw data is credible? 
The fact that deniers have ONLY error prone data to cling to shows their complete desperation.


----------



## IanC (Feb 11, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The term 'conspiracy theory' has morphed into a new meaning. Now it means  I disagree with what you say but I cannot rebut it so I will just belittle the idea in hopes that it will go away.
> ...




So you are saying that GISS version 2 was garbage, that we only found out how to to analyze temperature in 2011? What we have been calling 'raw' data was still cleaned and processed according to version 2.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 11, 2015)

IanC said:


> The term 'conspiracy theory' has morphed into a new meaning. Now it means  I disagree with what you say but I cannot rebut it so I will just belittle the idea in hopes that it will go away.
> 
> How could using the same raw(ish) data to point out the drastic change in adjustments be considered a conspiracy theory?
> 
> Are any of the warmists actually denying the information still actually posted on govt web sites? Does no one realize that replacing actual temp readings with 'expected readings' just leaves you with made up readings? Does no one realize that chopping up data series into pieces and reorganizing them to fit 'expectations' removes the underlying climate(30 year) signal?



Not at all.  Several rightie posters hear have been spewing the conspiracy cud for weeks now.  In fact, that is the OP of this thread!  That is their problem, not ours.  Have you been asleep all this time?  You don't use raw data in science.  It ALWAYS has to be calibrated against something.  I go through a lengthy calibration procedure every time I process data.  As does every other scientist on the planet.  Otherwise, the data is meaningless.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 11, 2015)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Some of V2 data WAS garbage and V3 is able to detect the garbage and correct it. Since ONLY garbage data supports the deniers, of course they want to cling to the garbage and condemn anything that removes the garbage as a conspiracy to fudge the data.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 11, 2015)

Since the deniers all ran from this in the other thread, I'll repost it here.

Scientists have adjusted the raw data, yes, and those adjustments make it look like there's been _less_ warming.

Deniers, how does you conspiracy theory explain that?

And why did you all claim the exact opposite?

It doesn't say much for your credibility, deniers, that you left the ocean surface temps out the global surface temp average, and tried to pretend that only adjustments to land temps had any effect. The real scientists didn't make such a stupid mistake. That's why they're winning Nobel Prizes, while you're all howling on message boards.












  ...


----------



## JoeNormal (Feb 12, 2015)

edthecynic said:


>


Interesting and informative.

I thought that the one bit of consensus on either side of the AGW debate was that temperatures are indeed rising.  Now this latest 'scandal' has to be thrown into the mix...


----------



## JoeNormal (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Just like you deniers will jump on every fake scandal that comes along.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 12, 2015)

JoeNormal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


 we'e learned from the best warmers spouting off about the fake globul warming scares.  It's called ping pong, we've ponged.


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...








Yes, but it is inconsistent, thus it is not reliable, thus it is relegated to hearsay evidence.  1970 is when systematic, ACCURATE measurements began.  What is science?  MEASUREMENT.  That is what science is about.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2015)

JoeNormal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...








Feel free to point out any of these so called fake scandals.  I would love to see one.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> Feel free to point out any of these so called fake scandals.  I would love to see one.



This thread is entirely about one such denier fake scandal. And every denier here fell hard for it. Like they always do.

If you're claiming it's not a fake scandal, present your evidence. That is, since the adjustments make the warming look _smaller_, explain why the scientists making global warming look less severe with the adjustments is somehow a scandal.


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free to point out any of these so called fake scandals.  I would love to see one.
> ...









You are the one claiming it's a fake scandal.  So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why.  Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler.  Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is.  A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc.  You fraudsters never do.  Why is that?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free to point out any of these so called fake scandals.  I would love to see one.
> ...


 you're right one fake scandal, the one that has data altered.  Admitted to as well.  Not quite sure you get to where you got when they've admitted the data is altered.  ADMITTED IT!!! Dude/dudette why are you always like a nag on here?


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



This makes the goofy assumption that ships in the area prior to 1970 did not have accurate thermometers or scientists on them who knew how to read and record one.  That really is a stupid assumption not based on reality.  Try again.


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









No, this makes the very accurate assumption that what records there were were limited and inconsistent.  There was no linear record at all.  It was limited measurements taken at random times, and varied locations.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> You are the one claiming it's a fake scandal.



That's not how science works. You presented a new theory that contradicts the currently accepted science. It's an extraordinary claim on your part, so it requires extraordinary evidence to back it up.



> So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why.



Previous to this particular conspiracy, it was your side demanding that the raw data not be used, and that more and bigger modifications were necessary. The whole denier community was screaming that more modifications to the raw data were required because of stations moving, construction near stations, changes in instrument types and UHI effects. By doing that, deniers conceded that adjustments to the raw data are necessary for accuracy. Deniers don't get to do a complete flipflop on that issue now unless they can explain why such a flipflop is justified.



> Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler.  Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.



A false claim. That's not even true for land stations. And for ocean stations, which account for 70% of the surface, the corrections always make the past look warmer.



> A thinking person would ask themselves why that is.  A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc.  You fraudsters never do.  Why is that?



Back to your conspiracy theory you go. The only response needed is to point out it's a paranoid fantasy.

Those who created this recent conspiracy theory deliberately left out the oceans, where all the adjustments are to make the past temps warmer, thus making the current warming look smaller. It's a cherrypick so brazen, I can think of no other explanation for it besides deliberate fraud on the part of the conspiracy theory authors.

If zero adjustments were made to the raw data, the current warming trend would look _larger_.

Instead, scientists make those necessary adjustments, and the current warming trend ends up looking _smaller_.

And so your conspiracy theory goes boom.

Deniers, of course, couldn't have known that. Their cult leaders didn't inform them of the fact of the ocean adjustments, and they shun non-cult sources, so deniers had no way of knowing. Now they do know, and they're flailing. They know their cult was wrong, but it's absolutely forbidden for them to say that their cult was wrong. Hence, the cultists are reduced to inventing new ways to deflect from the issue, which is that they were caught red-handed repeating a baseless conspiracy theory.


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You are the one claiming it's a fake scandal.
> ...









Ummmm, no....it's the other way around bucko.  We are claiming that the global temps are nothing unusual.  Everything we see and everything that actually has empirical data to support it, says that this is normal variation.

It is YOU who claim that mankind is causing stuff to happen.  See how that works, our contention is it's natural, you're the ones making the extraordinary claim.  Thus it is YOU who have to support it.  So far your support has consisted of falsifying the historical record to try and prop up your now failed theory.

See?  See how that works?


----------



## JoeNormal (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Don't know what to tell you.  The title of this thread is: Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger.

And you've seen the reason for the supposed tampering.  Yet somehow, it doesn't penetrate your thick cranium.


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2015)

JoeNormal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...








The "reason" is merely an opinion piece.  It gives zero specifics of why it was necessary.  I'm a scientist.  Scientists are supposed to question EVERYTHING.  That's why when I hear a glib answer that truly says nothing, I get curious.

The fact you don't merely shows that your cranium is filled with rock.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> Ummmm, no....it's the other way around bucko.  We are claiming that the global temps are nothing unusual.  Everything we see and everything that actually has empirical data to support it, says that this is normal variation.
> 
> It is YOU who claim that mankind is causing stuff to happen.  See how that works, our contention is it's natural, you're the ones making the extraordinary claim.  Thus it is YOU who have to support it.  So far your support has consisted of falsifying the historical record to try and prop up your now failed theory.
> 
> See?  See how that works?



I see that, as I predicted, you found a way to ignore most of the content of my post and the thread topic by going off on a deflection.

The topic of this thread is the new denier conspiracy theory that you fell for. I addressed the topic head on, but you're running from the topic, making it look like you understand how hard you've failed here. You shouldn't derail threads in that manner.

Now, care to address the topic, which is how the adjustments make the warming look smaller, but deniers claimed the exact opposite?


----------



## JoeNormal (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Ok, let's examine this.  On one hand, there is the very plausible explanation that calibration was required.  It seems that a scientist would agree.  On the other hand, there's a vast global warming conspiracy that requires fudging the numbers in a specific country to sustain a preconceived outcome.  Which one of these sounds closer to the truth to you Mr. Scientist?


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The fact is that ship measurements at various locations around the world have been used for years.  A measurement taken at a location in the middle of the Atlantic at a certain time of day is just as relevant as any other measurement.  and your claim that they were taken at random times is not supported by the facts.  And even if they were, so what?  You've never created scientific graphs, have you?  Of course not.  You just pretend that you have.


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









Random temperature measurements are just that....random.  They provide nothing useful in terms of continuity.  Continuity is what matters when you are measuring something.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Proving yet again that you don't know what you are talking about.

Using naval logbooks to reconstruct past weather and predict future climate Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Proving that it's you who has no clue what you're talking about, the RN sailed on set routes due to prevailing winds and currents.   Those routes are well documented and known.  Further, they took the temp records at the same times each day when at all possible.  Were very rigorous with navigational data so we know exactly where they were, when they were, what time they were there, etc.  In other words, NOT RANDOM.

It was also common for the naturalists to travel on the RN ships to conduct their studies.  Those records are kept in various places including the PRO in London.

"Centuries later, that *rigorously acquired* information is being put to good use, providing a trove of archival data to scientists who are trying to fill in the details of our knowledge about the atmosphere and the changing climate."


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You are the one who claimed they were random, and now you are claiming that they weren't.  I've said all along that they weren't, hence why I challenged your stupid claim and posted the link above. And even if they are random in location and time, they can certainly still be used.  You just have to be smarter than a 5th grader to know how.


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








No, I am saying the Royal Navy records of the 1700's and 1800's were anything but random.  The Admiralty recognized the importance of good data collection and there were naval regulations that codified how, and when they were to be taken.  They also had the best instruments of the time to do it with.

You're funny.  You plop these little vignettes on here thinking they are "gotcha" moments and they all just show how poorly versed you are in what they are saying.  Anybody who is well versed in science knows how rigorous RN data collection was.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You said that records before 1970 were inaccurate and not used.  Further, you said that they were random in time and location.  I demonstrated that they not only were accurate, but were being used.  Why don't you just man up and admit that you were mistaken?


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







That is correct, the ARCTIC records were random.  The RN records are along specific sea routes and in specific anchorages around the world.  Nothing in the Arctic though.  Which is the area we're talking about.  Do try and keep up.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



And yet:

Arctic ship logs help scientists reconstruct climatic history Through a porthole darkly High Country News

Do try to keep up.


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Yes, those are the random records I was talking about.  The article references a single US ship the Yukon, what's really funny is the lat long they reference is in the middle of BC Canada (Prince George to be exact), along the Fraser river.  They also talk about the RN records (which don't mention Arctic conditions) they also point out that the Yukon sailed along the Alaska coast (which was unknown at the time) and while she did indeed make it into the Bering Sea, and surveyed the western Aleutian Islands, *she never crossed the Arctic Circle.*

Which, yet again, is the area we are talking about.

Do try and keep up.

You DO know where the Arctic Circle is...right?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The answer is quite simple. They are not doing science. They are being political whores.  Its rather funny that the hairball  used GHCN VERSION 3 in its graphs  because the data has been altered.  The RAW data it used has been homogenized and corrected.  Only Version 2 still gives the unaltered data.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. * Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler.  Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.*
> 
> A thinking person would ask themselves why that is.  A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc.  You fraudsters never do.  Why is that?


That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. Deniers just make that shit up with no proof at all! The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. * Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler.  Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.*
> ...







Show us a measurement then.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. * Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler.  Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.*
> ...



Lets see just what it is that software does....






Yep, working as desired...


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> *The "reason" is merely an opinion piece.*  It gives zero specifics of why it was necessary.  I'm a scientist.  Scientists are supposed to question EVERYTHING.  That's why when I hear a glib answer that truly says nothing, I get curious.
> 
> The fact you don't merely shows that your cranium is filled with rock.


That is YOUR perverted opinion. 

All revisions are FULLY documented, the fact that you falsely claim that there are no specifics for each version update is merely a testament to your laziness, not any deceit on the part of the honest scientists who made and documented the revisions.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 12, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Again there are two different ID numbers on your fake blink graph.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


That which you asserted without proof, I can dismiss without.

Giss REPORTS that the adjustments are BOTH up and down in their documentation of the revisions, so the burden is on YOU to back up your undocumented opinion, especially since you were too lazy to even research the documentation the real scientists provide.

NCDC Technical Report No. GHCNM‐12‐02 provides a detailed summary of each software modification and the resulting impacts to global temperatures. This report is available at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical Report NCDC No12‐02‐ Distribution.pdf


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2015)

*Temperature Adjustments Around The World*






The adjustments and homogenization are changing the climate record.  There is no justification for the changes that is credible.  The problem lies in homogenization which is used to in-fill grid squares in Global Climate Models known as General Circulation Models. If a temperature seems out of sync with the surrounding sites, it is adjusted upward.  This aberrant change in the record simply destroys it. It also in-fills inappropriate temperatures into grid squares that are much cooler. This is the reason the Arctic is shown to be warming when in fact as the satellite record shows there has been no warming..

The adjustments being made today are crap. Pure and simple!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Both are the same site. One is for the pre-adjustment data identifier and the second is for the post adjustment data identifier.   Funny, I placed the latitude and longitude on these graphs simply to keep fools from making that incorrect assumption.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2015)

*Post 107, Westwall

Yes, but it is inconsistent, thus it is not reliable, thus it is relegated to hearsay evidence. 1970 is whenY systematic, ACCURATE measurements began. What is science? MEASUREMENT. That is what science is about. You didn't know this? Huh.

Post 123, Westwall

Proving that it's you who has no clue what you're talking about, the RN sailed on set routes due to prevailing winds and currents. Those routes are well documented and known. Further, they took the temp records at the same times each day when at all possible. Were very rigorous with navigational data so we know exactly where they were, when they were, what time they were there, etc. In other words, NOT RANDOM.

It was also common for the naturalists to travel on the RN ships to conduct their studies. Those records are kept in various places including the PRO in London.

"Centuries later, that rigorously acquired information is being put to good use, providing a trove of archival data to scientists who are trying to fill in the details of our knowledge about the atmosphere and the changing climate."
*
Looks a major shifting of gears here. Notice Westwall hasn't posted his usual, "There is a major cooling trend in progress" nonsense lately, also. 
*
*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Post 107, Westwall
> 
> Yes, but it is inconsistent, thus it is not reliable, thus it is relegated to hearsay evidence. 1970 is whenY systematic, ACCURATE measurements began. What is science? MEASUREMENT. That is what science is about. You didn't know this? Huh.
> 
> ...



Thanks for reminding me...






Still cooling....

Satellite Data shows the CAGW fraud really well...


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Post 107, Westwall
> ...


Link for where that graph is from, asshole.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 12, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Both are the same site.
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2015)

Temperature data HadCRUT4 

*Sure doesn't look like your graph.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2015)

Global surface temperature - Met Office

More graphs, with the sources.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 12, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Still cooling....
> 
> Satellite Data shows the CAGW fraud really well...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 12, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Temperature data HadCRUT4
> 
> *Sure doesn't look like your graph.*



Yours was "Adjusted"


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Still cooling....
> ...


So your an ENSO DENIER... you think that the step increases are from man when they can be shown empirically to be caused by the ENSO, ADO, PDO and its warm phases. 

Your sooooo predictable. And addicted to Skeptical Science lies..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Temperature data HadCRUT4
> ...



He has applied the Mann Correction Vector..





FORTRAN is unforgiving... That inserted line will cause a hockey stick in any data set its applied to...  white noise or random numbers as well...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 12, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Global surface temperature - Met Office
> 
> More graphs, with the sources.



Met Office? Same Met Office that said no warming these past 2 decades?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> No they are not. They are two completely different data sets. the one you call "old" is a single uncalibrated dataset (singular), and the one you call "new" is a combination of several (plural) calibrated data sets (plural)



You really need to learn how to use the quote function..

Homogenization of data sets causing the alteration of the single point. I am very well aware of the lie that it creates..  The Old is the single site. The New is the new and improved homogenized data set, hence the data set number being different..  ITS GARBAGE and a LIE! It is also being done all over the globe in an attempt to further the CAGW LIE!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 12, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


But aren't there also supposed to be cooling phases? There has been no real cooling phase for the past 100 years. There are warming phases followed by flat phases followed by warming phases starting just about where the previous warming phase left off. Something is interfering with the cold cycle the last 100 years. What do you suppose it is?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Another simple answer...  Its the Sun and the fact we have just left a very active phase of the solar cycle. Earths Energy budget was fairly close to equilibrium and as a result there were short bursts of warming caused by the ocean and the suns input then maintained the level until the next warm phase.

What comes next is going to stun the global warming alarmist as we fall into the cooling side of solar output. When the suns input will not maintain the warmth caused by the oceans warm phase.  The Antarctic is already showing us what the cooling coming is going to be like..


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 12, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > No they are not. They are two completely different data sets. the one you call "old" is a single uncalibrated dataset (singular), and the one you call "new" is a combination of several (plural) calibrated data sets (plural)
> ...


No, the new set ends in ID zero, it is a composite of several calibrated data sets. The old set ending in ID three is one uncalibrated data set of at least 3, there might be more, but the ID ending in 3 means there must be at least 3.

Version 3, which is the new graph, is a composite of all the data sets for that site after they have been calibrated to the instrument currently being used at that site.

If you would take the time to read the FAQs that the NCDC provides you would know that the dishonest blink  graph is comparing a partial uncalibrated data set to a calibrated complete set.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 12, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> FORTRAN is unforgiving... That inserted line will cause a hockey stick in any data set its applied to...  white noise or random numbers as well...



Good thing it was only used on test data then. Billy here is lying outright by claiming it was used to generate results from actual data.

Billy has been informed of that before. He doesn't care. When any of his lies get debunked, he just waits a bit and then tells the same lie again. That eliminates ignorance as a possible excuse for him lying, and graduates him into the class of a deliberate fraudster.

That's why normal people find the deniers to be so offensive to their sense of basic decency and honesty. If a given denier isn't an outright fraud like Billy, that denier is at least running cover for the fraudsters.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > FORTRAN is unforgiving... That inserted line will cause a hockey stick in any data set its applied to...  white noise or random numbers as well...
> ...



Mamooth lying again... you dont even know that for about 25 years it was the only program which could be used in climate modeling...  what a moron.. and a liar to boot..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Keep on reaching...  You will get there eventually...


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 12, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Deniers have been predicting that coming "Ice Age" since the 1970s, and still we keep warming.
Guess again.

I don't suppose you are willing to give a timetable for this overwhelming cooling solar phase.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 12, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis GISTEMP -- Updates to Analysis

*December 14, 2011:* GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. *This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (combining different station records for the same location*, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc).


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Here you go lazy bones, the blue to purple areas in the third column are the changes from V2 to V3 that were adjusted down, the yellow to red were adjusted up, the white areas were unchanged. Now man up and admit you lied when you parroted your denier source who fed you the bullshit that all the adjustments were in one direction.

This was your exact quote:"*Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler.  Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction."*

Data.GISS GISTEMP Analysis Updates GHCN-M V3 vs. V2


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You are the one claiming it's a fake scandal.
> ...


 well, again interesting, here you are in another thread and still no experiment.  you come in here and request evidence yet ignore the requests to you.  Just curious, do you see this as fair?


----------



## mamooth (Feb 13, 2015)

jc, it's definitely not fair that you're spamming and derailing threads again. It's all you do, and you need to stop.

This thread is about how the deniers got busted when they attempted their latest fraud. If you'd like to contribute, try reading up on the topic. Here are some links to help you out.

Temperature data is not the biggest scientific scandal ever Ars Technica

Nothing False About Temperature Data

RealClimate Noise on the Telegraph

Fox News host Climate scientists fabricated temperature data PunditFact

 data blog.pageTitle


----------



## elektra (Feb 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, it's definitely not fair that you're spamming and derailing threads again. It's all you do, and you need to stop.
> 
> This thread is about how the deniers got busted when they attempted their latest fraud. If you'd like to contribute, try reading up on the topic. Here are some links to help you out.
> 
> ...


I did not know you switched sides, so you now agree, that the IPCC and all the climate, global warming scientists are frauds.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Hey westwall Why are you avoiding this post?


----------



## elektra (Feb 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I was just curious, do you have the actual temperatures or just a crayola crayon colored picture from a "scientist".


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

elektra said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Gee, what a surprise, NOT! 
An illustrated summary of the changes to the data does not persuade a denier that adjustments were made in both directions simply because it has colors.


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







Describe what you see in these graphs ed.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Geeezzzz, how thick are you, I already spelled it out for you, what do you not understand????? I've just highlighted it in red to help you!


----------



## elektra (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I am just asking, do you have the actual temperature data. Changes to the data means nothing, Like what was the temperature in 1850 on this day, what was the temperature in Boston on this day back when Samuel Adams was alive? Or how about just pick any city and post the temperature? 

Or maybe somebody has posted the temperatures already.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

elektra said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Don't try to change the subject. The false claim was made that ALL the adjustments in the change from V2 to V3 were in only ONE direction, when in actuallity the changes were in both directions, which the third column which charts only the changes clearly illustrates.
Get it?


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...








Based on what trends ed?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


The same exact trends you claim were in ONLY gone direction.
You are obviously not man enough to admit your claim had no basis in fact!
Thank you.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


well the previous cooling phase before the current one was 1940 to 1970. I believe that to be under 100 years.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


right, in 1950 the trend was down in the 2000s the trend is up.  Yep got that, makes for a real nice trend upward.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 18, 2015)

Once more, with feeling, let's go over what the deniers keep running from, over and over, every last one of them.

All the temperature adjustments combined make the past look _warmer_, and thus make the current warming look _smaller_.

If scientists wanted to make the warming look bigger, they'd simply have to do nothing. They'd just use the raw data with no adjustments at all. But instead, they deliberately use adjustments that make the current warming look _smaller_, the exact opposite of what the denier conspiracy theory claims.

That means this latest denier conspiracy theory fails hard. Deniers, you got some splainin' to do, concerning why you all fell so hard for the scam, and why most of you still choose to push the scam -- that is, deliberately lie -- long after it's been debunked. If deniers will lie so brazenly about this, isn't it logical to assume every that every denier is deliberately lying each time they post anything?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Once more, with feeling, let's go over what the deniers keep running from, over and over, every last one of them.
> 
> All the temperature adjustments combined make the past look _warmer_, and thus make the current warming look _smaller_.
> 
> ...


so the issue with me, is why they feel the need to touch historic records?


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...










No, I'm looking at what you present and the presentation I see is a global climate model.  I see nothing that has to do with the adjustments of the weather stations.  We are talking about the local station data that is being altered.  Not the global that you present here.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > But aren't there also supposed to be cooling phases? There has been no real cooling phase for the past 100 years. There are warming phases followed by flat phases followed by warming phases starting just about where the previous warming phase left off. Something is interfering with the cold cycle the last 100 years. What do you suppose it is?
> ...


Not a cooling phase at all. A flat phase, yes, but not a cooling phase. A warming phase started in 1910 and flattened out by 1940. The "cooling" you claim never got near the 1910 low and by 1980 was at about the same place where the warming flattened out in 1940. We are flat again now with no cooling in sight, especially to the 1910 levels. In fact this flat cycle is even flatter then the previous flat cycle.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You "see" only what you want to see. Those charts are not models, they are the actual local station data from V2 and V3. It was the change from V2 to V3 that you deniers falsely claim is what altered the data in ONE direction ONLY. The left chart is V2 for the indicated years local data, the middle chart is V3 for the same years, and the third chart is the amount of change and in what direction positive or negative from V2 to V3 for each locale across the globe for the same years.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


What I see is the cyclical trend that correlates to the 160 year solar cycle, Of which we only have about 80% of.  Our recent hiatus of warming can be attributed to the top of the cycle as well as the average warmth of our records to date.  What we are about to enter is the cooling phase  which should last about 60-100 years.  You alarmists are in for a really big let down emotionally and physically as the earth cools.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


That is the same argument you deniers made in the 1970s with your last Ice Age prediction. How did that work out for you?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


nope 1940 t0 1970.

link,Climate myths The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist






I see what they're doing everyone, they're adjusting the data to take out the cooling phases to show something than what actually happened.  I'd call that an easy button.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


i don't want to see fudged data thank you.  So V2 data only.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


What you are really saying is that you don't want to see reality. And are willing to endanger the lives of our descendents so you can live in your imaginery universe.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


i'm endangering no one.  You on the other hand will wipe out the poor with your path.  BTW, eleven dead in the chicago area this month from the cold.  So, not sure how I'm endangering anything.  mother nature does it on her own.  Or do you think you can control weather?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Your chart shows a .6 degree C warming from 1910 to 1940, then a .2 C cooling from 1940 to 1950 and then another .6C warming from 1950 to 2000, so there was a slight cooling over only 10 years no 30 year cooling.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> i don't want to see fudged data thank you.  So V2 data only.




that is tooooooo funny1 version 2 data is also massively adjusted but it certainly looks better than the travesty of version 3


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > i don't want to see fudged data thank you.  So V2 data only.
> ...


V3 data is the most accurate, but deniers only accept data that agrees with their religion, no matter how inaccurate.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




hahahaha. the most accurate _what???_  last year we were told that the algorithms were performing as expected. I suppose that may be true but an accurate temperature history is not what we are getting.

over the last few weeks I have read a lot of the explanations from people like Zeke, Stokes, Venema, etc and they all sound rather soothing but they never seem to answer specific questions. they make a lot of generalized statements that could be taken in many ways.


I love their new meme that they want to get established. "The adjustments actually _reduce _the warming trend so why dont you trust us?".  see?, look at our graph


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2015)

Stokes has his own story- 


> records aren't adjusted in the belief that thermometers were read incorrectly. They are usually adjusted specifically for the calculation of a regional average. Station records are used as representative of a region. When something happens that is not climate-based, then it isn't representative of the region.



so we shouldnt expect a station temperature record to actually match the data collected. except perhaps if it matches what is expected to be found.



> But sometimes a definite error shows up. There may have been one at Reykjavik. Part of a temperature dip was wrongly considered an inhomogeneity. So should it be fixed?
> No! As noted above, a good algorithm has been tested for lack of bias. If you start intervening, it loses that property. Noise won't hurt the average, but taking out the bits that displease naysayers certainly will.



so, obvious errors dont matter. and fixing problems would upset the algorithm. allllllllrighty then. well we wouldnt want to piss off the computer code would we?


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2015)

from Zeke's explanation over at Judith Curry's blog-






with every new layer of adjustments the variation becomes less and less. everything is modified to match expectations.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



As the stop in global warming continues your dire predictions fail over and over again... What are you going to do in 5 years when the cooling trend is solidified and your lie can not be hidden further?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Doesn't it have to start cooling first before you can have a cooling trend? Don't count your chickens before they are hatched.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> from Zeke's explanation over at Judith Curry's blog-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Except the adjustments have REDUCED the warming trend which goes against the expectations you deniers claim the real scientists have! All of the warmest areas have disappeared after the adjustments.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> I love their new meme that they want to get established. "The adjustments actually _reduce _the warming trend so why dont you trust us?".  see?, look at our graph



In the mind of the conspiracy theorist, the conspiracy is always correct, by definition. Therefore, any facts that contradict the conspiracy clearly must be faked data. Therefore, those facts that supposedly contradict the conspiracy theory instead actually prove the conspiracy theory.

And that's why denier conspiracy theorists can't be reasoned with.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > from Zeke's explanation over at Judith Curry's blog-
> ...


bad data, bad data.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2015)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I love their new meme that they want to get established. "The adjustments actually _reduce _the warming trend so why dont you trust us?".  see?, look at our graph
> ...


any data that isn't corrected is bad data.  the true deniers.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


The deniers bitch that the data needs to be corrected or removed, like for UHI or bad placement, and when the data is corrected or removed the deniers claim there is a conspiracy to adjust data or remove stations.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > from Zeke's explanation over at Judith Curry's blog-
> ...


Which one of the major datasets has the highest temps and trends? BEST. Climate trends are supposed to be 30 years long. If you chop up the series into bit size pieces and rearrange them into what you want to see, what happens to the climatic signal? It's gone and you have a smeared homogeneous mess.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 21, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...








14 years is not a trend?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 21, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Geezzz, deniers can't even count. Do you actually see 14 years in that graph?


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2015)

T


edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




There are different problems in different parts of the globe. The USA has lots of stations but a sizeable minority that are used for global use are 'infilled'. Africa has next to no data, so depending on the need it can be adjusted in any direction, and those 'corrections' used to balance the equation so that they can say the adjustments lower as much as they increase temps.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Your graph looks just like the Berkeley Earth treatment of temp series. They chop it into pieces and connect the endpoints. Do you need to see yet another example? It is funny to see your side accuse us of the very thing that you guys actually do.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 21, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Let me see.. 2002 through 2014...  hmmmmm   WOW.. miscounted and it still does nothing to the valid point...  and then you post SKS garbage which they misinterpret and cant even see the causation of ENSO and Ocean cyclical cycles...  You really are clueless...


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2015)

The graph encompasses 2002-2015, that is 14 calendar years.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2015)

IanC said:


> The graph encompasses 2002-2015, that is 14 calendar years.


Another denier who can't tell time yet is a know-it-all. 
It would be 14 years if and only if 2015 was complete.
This is exactly how deniers read all data, they see what they want to see and not what is actually there.
Thank you.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 22, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The graph encompasses 2002-2015, that is 14 calendar years.
> ...





Im laughing..........in the end s0n, nobody cares. The "science" is not mattering in the real world. Renewable's are still laughable, particularly solar.


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2015)

SkS's bizarre interpretation of the skeptic's position-






Berkeley Earth's data for Raleigh









they then chop it into little pieces and realign the graph and the trend has turned from cooling to warming. (as an aside, did the station really stop taking readings in 2005?)



> *Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )*
> Raw monthly anomalies -0.61
> After quality control -0.61
> After breakpoint alignment 0.54



how does BEST 'pay' for increasing the trend here? they wouldnt want to only have increases everywhere because that would look fishy, wouldnt it?

Africa has, conservatively, a thousand times fewer stations and covers a larger portion of the globe so every station is associated with a much greater impact. A change in an African station balances out a whole lot of stations like Raleigh.










> *Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )*
> Raw monthly anomalies 4.65
> After quality control 4.55
> After breakpoint alignment 1.74




hmmm, close to 3C/century downward adjustment times the multiplier rate gives a lot of slack in the system to 'fix' other areas.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2015)

IanC said:


> SkS's bizarre interpretation of the skeptic's position-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The two Raleigh charts are from two completely different data sets, and clearly labeled as such, not a reassembled version of a chopped up data set, as you dishonestly claim. The top is the raw data and the bottom "chopped" chart is a plot of the deviation of the raw data from regional data, not a chopped version of the raw data.
Why are deniers so dishonest???


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SkS's bizarre interpretation of the skeptic's position-
> ...




I can only post up the graphs that BEST produce. They produced the presumably raw data in one graph. They then produced a graph of the raw data compared to what they expected to find, and inserted artificial breakpoints, as shown in the second graph. The third graph (not shown) presents the newly rearranged data compared to the expected local range. The table then states how the trend from raw data has been changed from a cooling trend to a warming trend. 

I can understand how people could find that somewhat dishonest on the part of BEST but why do you think I am dishonest for simply posting the information straight from the Berkeley Earth website?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 23, 2015)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


You deniers just can't stop yourselves from lying. The second graph you posted is clearly labeled and it says nothing about the raw data being "compared to what they expected to find."
Do you really think people are incapable of reading the labels on the graphs simply because you choose to ignore them and relabel them yourself?


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I notice that you dont quote the label of the graph

"Difference of Station Temperature Data from Regional Average"

how is that different than what I said? they converted the data to anomalies from the expected result (regional average), then add breakpoints and rearrange the trend so that it matches the regional trend. 

so what is my lie, specifically?


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 23, 2015)

mUcH bIgGeR


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2015)

version 2 GISS graph









version 3 GISS graph

notice the y axis. it is 0.5C higher in version 3 but graph is identical pre-1915, and almost identical pre-1970. what would cause an across the board increase of older temps? remember the version 2 numbers are already cleaned up and homogenized, just not by the version 3 algorithms. UHI and TOBS were already correct for. the trend doesnt look a whole lot different but still.....

PS- this is not the same Raleigh station that is mention by BEST in my previous posts, it is the only one available off the GISS station selector.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 23, 2015)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I notice you dishonestly change the label from "regional average" which is actual data, to "expected result" which is nonexistent data fabricated by lying deniers so it can be anything a liar wants it to be.

BTW, they didn't convert anything to anomalies, the raw data was in anomalies to begin with, and again clearly labeled as such.



IanC said:


> They produced the presumably raw data in one graph. They then produced a graph of the raw data *compared to what they expected to find*,


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 23, 2015)

IanC said:


> version 2 GISS graph
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This lie has already been rebutted in this very thread earlier. Repeating it does not suddenly make it valid.


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




The second chart is anomalies away from expected results(regional averages), otherwise it would match the first graph. How would they 'discover' the breakpoints without comparing the raw data to something else?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 23, 2015)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Repeating your lie does not make it any less a lie. Regional averages are MEASURED results, not "expected" results which can be anything lying deniers want them to be.


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Regional averages are measured result? Not really. They are certainly not just the average of raw data (cleaned and weighted). The kriging and jack kniving only work once you have determined a baseline. Once the baseline is set everything gets adjusted to match it. Circular reasoning.


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > version 2 GISS graph
> ...




Hahahaha. The first 40 years are an exact match, less the 0.5C offset but Eddie says they are different stations. How desperate. It's not unlike Crick saying that the Mythbuster's experiment that showed a CO2 reading of 7% must have been measuring something else unrelated to the experiment.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 23, 2015)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


You were already linked to the differences between V2 and V3 and why V3 is more accurate. I will remind you that there were also adjustments in the opposite direction from V2 to V3, but the deceivers who feed you misinformation leave that out because they know you will ignore it even though I linked to it earlier in this very thread.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 23, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I dont think this is right so I am gonna just add 3 deg C to make it right..  the circular logic is stunning...


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 23, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


There is no 3 deg C shift anywhere on those 2 graphs. You are a lousy liar!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2015)

Messing with the data isn't science.

But agenda's must be met at all costs. To the AGW nutters, rigging the data is a noble cause.


The Green Agenda


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 24, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Tell me.. If a graph shows a -1.5 deg trend and the new improved graph shows a +1.5 deg c trend what is the shift?   I have to bring out crayons to teach idiots..


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 25, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


There is no such shift in the 2 graphs. Not even crayons can help you.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 25, 2015)

The AGW fascists will throw themselves off a cliff to protect the sanctity of the established narrative. But fiacts are facts.........the scientists are fudging the data and you can find it in lots of places, including The Guardian, The New York Times et. al.. Of course Im a fucking skeptic. No matter what information is exposed to counter the established narrative, the typical AGW fascist will reject it.............invariably


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 26, 2015)

Notice gentlemen.........suddenly little interest in this thread from the AGW k00ks. They have collectively decided, "better let this one slip off the front page and into oblivion because we are looking like dicks!"

fing weenies do this all the time..........when you're getting your ass pwned, bail!!!!!

weak


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gay-hair-stylist.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## mamooth (Feb 26, 2015)

That's Skook's current selfie, in case anyone didn't know.

Let's keep piling the humiliation on the denier kooks, being that they deserve it, on account of their years of fraud and fudging. Even the right-leaning Politifact keeps rating the claims of skook and Billy as "Pants On Fire". And that's what the world sees. What the world doesn't see is a couple deneir frauds crying on a message board.

Fox News host Climate scientists fabricated temperature data PunditFact

Fox s Doocy NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming PunditFact


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 26, 2015)

mamooth said:


> That's Skook's current selfie, in case anyone didn't know.
> 
> Let's keep piling the humiliation on the denier kooks, being that they deserve it, on account of their years of fraud and fudging. Even the right-leaning Politifact keeps rating the claims of skook and Billy as "Pants On Fire". And that's what the world sees. What the world doesn't see is a couple deneir frauds crying on a message board.
> 
> ...



It's impossible to put into words how full of shit you are.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 26, 2015)

The Willie Soon thing is blowing up big in the faces of the deniers. It's something that people can understand, how all the denier hacks were being paid to lie. That's why you hear that note of hysteria in their voices, as Bri so kindly demonstrates.

House Dems Did Big Oil seek to sway scientists in climate debate - The Washington Post

Willie Soon was probably just the tip of the iceberg. Popcorn time.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The Willie Soon thing is blowing up big in the faces of the deniers. It's something that people can understand, how all the denier hacks were being paid to lie. That's why you hear that note of hysteria in their voices, as Bri so kindly demonstrates.
> 
> House Dems Did Big Oil seek to sway scientists in climate debate - The Washington Post
> 
> Willie Soon was probably just the tip of the iceberg. Popcorn time.


I want to see it through.  Let's see where the hack job really is.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 26, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The Willie Soon thing is blowing up big in the faces of the deniers. It's something that people can understand, how all the denier hacks were being paid to lie. That's why you hear that note of hysteria in their voices, as Bri so kindly demonstrates.
> 
> House Dems Did Big Oil seek to sway scientists in climate debate - The Washington Post
> 
> Willie Soon was probably just the tip of the iceberg. Popcorn time.



You're entitled to your delusions, but this is nothing new.   Smearing their critics is an old AGW cult member propaganda meme.  It hasn't worked in the past, so what makes you think it's going to work now?  If there is anyone with a credibility problem, it's the gang who has been caught red handed doctoring their data and making up graphs that have no connection with reality.


----------



## depotoo (Feb 26, 2015)

I know it was available a few years back.  I don't know about today.





Darkwind said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## depotoo (Feb 26, 2015)

Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable Other
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/watts_is_surface_temp_reliable.pdf
Mid term census report of the Surface Stations Project: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? -


Home


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 26, 2015)

poor FTG!!!!

Whole lot of *orange* going on there!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 26, 2015)

This thread needs to stay up at the top of the face page s0ns!!!

People need to know they are being bamboozled.


----------



## IanC (Mar 1, 2015)

Did any of the major Global Dataset players announce that they were making large and arbitrary changes to historical temperature readings? 15-30 years ago? No?

Are older climate papers still relevant if they used 'unadjusted' or 'incompletely adjusted' data? 

Are climate models running hot because they are tuned to unrealistically hot datasets? Are correlations corrupted when variations are 'removed'?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> Did any of the major Global Dataset players announce that they were making large and arbitrary changes to historical temperature readings?



No.

That was easy.

So what's the point of all those rhetorical questions?


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2015)

rigging the data is ghey


----------



## depotoo (Mar 1, 2015)

According to friends of mine in the industry, the data sets have been manipulated for years now.  They have access to the original datasets.  And they are pissed.  





IanC said:


> Did any of the major Global Dataset players announce that they were making large and arbitrary changes to historical temperature readings? 15-30 years ago? No?
> 
> Are older climate papers still relevant if they used 'unadjusted' or 'incompletely adjusted' data?
> 
> Are climate models running hot because they are tuned to unrealistically hot datasets? Are correlations corrupted when variations are 'removed'?


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2015)

Then where are their complaints?  I find it astounding that if the gatekeepers to all these data had been improperly manipulating these data as charged, that none of the thousands of scientists who use those data on a regular basis have complained.  Even Judith Curry has said its a non-issue and that the adjustments are justified.  The only people complaining are denier bloggers and folks on sites like this one.  Not much of an argument.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 1, 2015)

IanC said:


> Did any of the major Global Dataset players announce that they were making large and arbitrary changes to historical temperature readings? 15-30 years ago? No?
> 
> Are older climate papers still relevant if they used 'unadjusted' or 'incompletely adjusted' data?
> 
> Are climate models running hot because they are tuned to unrealistically hot datasets? Are correlations corrupted when variations are 'removed'?



Their arbitrary adjustments make all science prior to the adjustment suspect or they show that current agenda trumps science.. So which science is correct? 

Using the upwardly adjusted data shoves the CO2 sensitivity level into the realm of the failed models which, in their estimation should give them credibility so to speak. But the stop of global warming now 18 years 3 months and the subsequent cooling since 2002 show even the adjusted crap waste..

The adjustments were an attempt to regain credibility in the general public's eyes, but we exposed the charlatan snake oil sales men before they could finish the lie and data corruption.  They were caught red handed in the cookie jar.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 1, 2015)

depotoo said:


> According to friends of mine in the industry, the data sets have been manipulated for years now.  They have access to the original datasets.  And they are pissed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Many data sets have been corrupted.  several folks i am acquainted with are scanning in old logs and rebuilding many data sets where the original data is no longer available to the public while the homogenized adjusted is touted as the original..  why would they want to deceive the public?  This is not the work of scientists but the work of agenda driven whores...


----------



## mamooth (Mar 1, 2015)

depotoo said:


> According to friends of mine in the industry, the data sets have been manipulated for years now.  They have access to the original datasets.  And they are pissed.



And according to my sister-in-law's cousin's hairdresser's aunt's plumber's best pal, the Slender Man took away 3 children who lived next door. Because he was pissed.

Urban legends. They're literally all the deniers have left.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > According to friends of mine in the industry, the data sets have been manipulated for years now.  They have access to the original datasets.  And they are pissed.
> ...



Hairball is a legend in its own mind....


----------



## depotoo (Mar 1, 2015)

Make fun all you want, the truth will eventually come out and you will be sitting on the wrong side of the equation.  Better make your money and run while you can.





mamooth said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > According to friends of mine in the industry, the data sets have been manipulated for years now.  They have access to the original datasets.  And they are pissed.
> ...


----------



## ralfy (Mar 1, 2015)

Climate Denial Empire Strikes Back with Bogus Temperature Story Climate Denial Crock of the Week

with links to more articles


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 1, 2015)

ralfy said:


> Climate Denial Empire Strikes Back with Bogus Temperature Story Climate Denial Crock of the Week
> 
> with links to more articles


Skeptical Scinece... John Cooks little corner of paid for by Geroge Soros and Joe Romm... OMG!!! you really posted this propaganda crap?


----------



## depotoo (Mar 1, 2015)

You can't just rely on articles.  You have to examine all the research.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf
According to GAO’s survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records.

...
over 600 stations have been taken offline due to being incorrect.
If numbers appear faulty or if more than nine days are missing from a single month's tally, the whole month is thrown out, according to NCDC documents, and the Center uses a computer program to determine average temperatures at dozens of nearby stations to guess what the temperature would have been for the month at the unknown station.
The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset





ralfy said:


> Climate Denial Empire Strikes Back with Bogus Temperature Story Climate Denial Crock of the Week
> 
> with links to more articles


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 1, 2015)

depotoo said:


> You can't just rely on articles.  You have to examine all the research.
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf
> According to GAO’s survey of weather forecast offices,* about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards.* With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records.
> 
> ...


And deniers want to keep the known to be faulty data from the poorly sited stations because the faulty data reduces the warming trend.

If you remember the deniers insisted that the data from poorly sited stations be removed because they thought it increased the warming trend, but when the data deniers demanded to be removed was removed and the warming trend increased, they claimed "foul" and now demand the faulty data be put back.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> Then where are their complaints?  I find it astounding that if the gatekeepers to all these data had been improperly manipulating these data as charged, that none of the thousands of scientists who use those data on a regular basis have complained.  Even Judith Curry has said its a non-issue and that the adjustments are justified.  The only people complaining are denier bloggers and folks on sites like this one.  Not much of an argument.





Curry also said the bomb throwing is inappropriate and off the mark. In other words, the alarmist view is over the top.......which of course we've known for at least 2 decades.


Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry warns of decades of possible global cooling Suggests the current cool phase will continue until the 2030s Climate Depot


Global Warming The Most Dishonest Year on Record

Global Warming Alarmists Are Overrun By The Facts Watts Up With That 

New paper from Dr. Judith Curry could explain the pause Watts Up With That 

Congress Cancels Global Warming Hearing Because of Snowstorm FrontPage Magazine



LINKS > Conjecture................every time!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2015)

*LiNkS*


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 1, 2015)

Breaking New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government Principia Scientific Intl


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 1, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> Breaking New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government Principia Scientific Intl









Isnt Data Manipulation grand....


----------



## idb (Mar 1, 2015)

The climate doesn't care whether you believe that it's changing or not.


----------



## IanC (Mar 2, 2015)

USA data and ROW (rest of world) data are somewhat different. US data is in large part collected by volunteers who read the thermometers at convenient times, often in the morning. this necessitated adding TOB adjustments. ROW is more often associated with data collected by professionals as a part of their duties. their data is often contaminated by UHI but it is not adjusted in any meaningful way, the adjustments basically add up to zero.

I agree with the concept of TOB adjustments but I am not entirely sure that it has been accomplished in a reasonable manner. I think there should be a UHI adjustment because even though cities and towns are a small percentage of the Earth they make up a majority of the station locations. a difference of many degrees C is usual for the trend between the centre and the outskirts of a city. I find it incomprehensible that it doesnt show up on a long term basis even though just about every community increases in size, population and developed areas. BEST even finds a negative value for UHI. ????

the point of this post is that different parts of the world have to bee looked at differently. the USA has different problems that Europe. Africa has different problems than Australia. many explanations from the 'experts' conflate the problems and solutions from one area to another area. the global datasets say it doesnt matter if any one station or area is wrong, even flagrantly wrong, because the 'algorithm' is working as expected! so dont expect the official temperature record to match the actual temperature readings.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > You can't just rely on articles.  You have to examine all the research.
> ...



Home

The study done by Anthony Watts and several other scientist disprove your denier meme.. The longer you all deny true science the longer it will take for you to realize you have been fooled..


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 3, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


Nope, it actually confirms that the warming trend is increasing. The poorly sited stations the deniers reported were near heat sources, and not being real scientists the deniers thought being near heat sources would increase the warming trend because thec raw temps would be higher. But since real scientists use anomalies, higher raw temperatures actually make the anomalies lower. So when the deniers got their way and the poorly sited stations near heat sources were removed, the artificially lower anomalies were thus removed, much to the chagrin of the deniers, and when the more accurate data went against the denier's expectations they cried foul, like fools.


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> The study done by Anthony Watts and several other scientist disprove your denier meme.. The longer you all deny true science the longer it will take for you to realize you have been fooled..


Nope, it actually confirms that the warming trend is increasing. The poorly sited stations the deniers reported were near heat sources, and not being real scientists the deniers thought being near heat sources would increase the warming trend because thec raw temps would be higher. But since real scientists use anomalies, higher raw temperatures actually make the anomalies lower. So when the deniers got their way and the poorly sited stations near heat sources were removed, the artificially lower anomalies were thus removed, much to the chagrin of the deniers, and when the more accurate data went against the denier's expectations they cried foul, like fools.[/QUOTE]

and you call us liars!

here is a graphic from Watt's paper -






compliant staions are comparable to satellite data. non-compliant stations are much warmer. and NOAA is much higher than either one!!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 3, 2015)

Any data refusing to acknowledge Global Warming must be altered


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 3, 2015)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, it actually confirms that the warming trend is increasing. The poorly sited stations the deniers reported were near heat sources, and not being real scientists the deniers thought being near heat sources would increase the warming trend because thec raw temps would be higher. But since real scientists use anomalies, higher raw temperatures actually make the anomalies lower. So when the deniers got their way and the poorly sited stations near heat sources were removed, the artificially lower anomalies were thus removed, much to the chagrin of the deniers, and when the more accurate data went against the denier's expectations they cried foul, like fools.
> ...


Again you fail or pretend not to understand the difference between raw temperature and anomalies.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 3, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





s0n........nobody is caring about temperatures  >>>


From the Obama EIA yesterday..................

IEA Coal Will Continue to Dominate World Electricity RealClearEnergy


*lOsInG*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 3, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



How to teach a moron...

1. Show them that increased temperature in habitated areas increases the global average.
2, The increase of the average increases the anomalies. (most temperature recoding station are in habiated areas giving a false rise to the global temperatures)
3. The misrepresentation of actual temperature creates a fictional crisis.. Called AGW...

As morons are unteachable they will ignore reality.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 3, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> *How to teach a moron...*
> 
> 1. Show them that increased temperature in habitated areas increases the global average.
> *2, The increase of the average increases the anomalies.* (most temperature recoding station are in habiated areas giving a false rise to the global temperatures)
> ...


You mean how to BE an ass backwards moron!

Anomalies are measured against an average, therefore anything that artificially raises the average LOWERS the anomalies!!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > *How to teach a moron...*
> ...





uNteAchaBle s0n!!!

And better................*lOsInG!!!*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > *How to teach a moron...*
> ...



Latest homogenization and rewriting of the temperature records did two things.  It lowered  temps prior to 1960 and raised temperatures after 1990.  This created a false high in Anomaly compared to the new, better, temperature average range they constructed by falsification of the temperature record..

*Epic Fail AGAIN.*..


----------



## mamooth (Mar 4, 2015)

Billy and skook, have you thought about  turning state's evidence against the denier cult leaders? Testify about the fraud that you helped out with, and you'd only be facing probation.

I think you'd be crazy not to take such a deal. Even you have to see how the walls are closing in on your cult. Cult membership is down to the last few diehards. If you don't squeal, someone else will beat you to it, and you'll be the one doing hard time.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 4, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy and skook, have you thought about  turning state's evidence against the denier cult leaders? Testify about the fraud that you helped out with, and you'd only be facing probation.
> 
> I think you'd be crazy not to take such a deal. Even you have to see how the walls are closing in on your cult. Cult membership is down to the last few diehards. If you don't squeal, someone else will beat you to it, and you'll be the one doing hard time.


You're delusional.   If the walls are closing in on anyone, it's the priesthood of the AGW cult.


----------



## IanC (Mar 4, 2015)

Anomalies are not some complicated stat that no one without a PhD can understand. They are simply a measure of variance from the mean or a reference value of part of the series. This allows comparisons to other similar series. 

Watt's graph was presented as trends, which cannot be calculated without putting the data into anomalies. The main complaint against Watt's paper was the lack of specific adjustments for TOBS and equipment change. The good part of that was the co.mparisons showed that the stated adjustments in NOAA did not match up with the actual data.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy and skook, have you thought about  turning state's evidence against the denier cult leaders? Testify about the fraud that you helped out with, and you'd only be facing probation.
> 
> I think you'd be crazy not to take such a deal. Even you have to see how the walls are closing in on your cult. Cult membership is down to the last few diehards. If you don't squeal, someone else will beat you to it, and you'll be the one doing hard time.


talk about desperation.  Ouch dude'/dudette,


----------

