Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ian C -
In an age where there are literally dozens of sets of data and hundreds of monitoring stations, it makes little sense to me to obsess about the one that may have been altered for any one of a dozen perfectly good reasons.
I’ll leave the final words to Trausti Jonsson, one of the most experienced and respected scientists at the Iceland Met Office :-
In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing – and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency. It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.
It seems to come to the fact that you and the other denier cultists are too ignorant about science to know what you're talking about. You don't understand why climate scientists are working with the data in some way so you assume that they must be wrong or deliberately altering the data to achieve a certain result. LOL. It's your ignorance, not the scientific methodology that is the problem. Too bad you're too brainwashed to recognize that fact.
it is amazing that almost everytime you look closely at some aspect of climate science it turns out to be either shoddy or distorted.
Ian C -
In an age where there are literally dozens of sets of data and hundreds of monitoring stations, it makes little sense to me to obsess about the one that may have been altered for any one of a dozen perfectly good reasons.
Ill leave the final words to Trausti Jonsson, one of the most experienced and respected scientists at the Iceland Met Office :-
In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency. It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.
I think you must agree that this is a rather dramatic change! the GHCN was contacted over a year ago for a fuller explanation than just being pointed to this website (sorry the link no longer goes through. it appears that they have joined GISS in making large areas of their work inaccessible). no answer was forthcoming.
it is amazing that almost everytime you look closely at some aspect of climate science it turns out to be either shoddy or distorted.
SSDD -
Universities rely on money and if there is enough of it, then they aren't so shy about compromizing principles...just look at how much money penn state has spent keeping data paid for by the public from public eyes....ditto for CRU, NOAA, NASA and GISS.
Again, you simply can not possibly believe this nonsense.
If you want to be a scpetic, then go with that, but at least try and come up with some kind of reason to deny science which isn't just that every university in the world is part of some giant conspiracy. And yes - it would be a giant conspiracy and not an "error cascade".
If every developed country in the world monitors its own climate independently - and we know they do - how could there be an "error cascade"?
You need to try to think this stuff through, rather than just flail away with whatever excuse springs to mind first.
Ian C -
I am sure there have been real cases of poor science. In any field which involves a thousand scientists, there will be one or two bad apples. And I have no problem accepting that there may have been some serious errors made somewhere along the line and, who knows, maybe even a whitewash.
But these are straws in a haybarn. Of the last 1,000 papers published on various aspects of climate change, perhaps 2 will contain some bad science.
SSDD -
So you mean like when sceptics use "scientific" papers as sources, and then Oddball lists details of sceptical scientific organisations, and it turns out that those sources were funded by the coal industry, the automotive industry or the Reverand Sun Myung Moon?
Ian C -
I am sure there have been real cases of poor science. In any field which involves a thousand scientists, there will be one or two bad apples. And I have no problem accepting that there may have been some serious errors made somewhere along the line and, who knows, maybe even a whitewash.
But these are straws in a haybarn. Of the last 1,000 papers published on various aspects of climate change, perhaps 2 will contain some bad science.
Perhaps the charts for Iceland were wongly tampered with. Another hundred charts in other countries were not.
I just think the bigger picture is more important.
I have looked also into a few of the points sceptics have raised on this board, and I have to say that the intellectual standard has not been much higher than that of Holocaust denial.
Oddball posted a list of scpetical scientistific organisations the other day - one was funded by the automotive industry, two by coal and one by the Moonist Church.
He then posted a petition signed by 58 million-odd people. It then turns out most were tricked into signing, and few would sign the petition again. Names like 'I.C.Ewe' also appeared on the list if signatories.
At the time I see sceptics dealing with this kind of thing, perhaps I'll look into more valid lines on enquiry.
SSDD -
Why would you "repeatedly" ask me for proof about a topic I've never mentioned?
Seriously, dude, at least try and present solid, coherent arguments, otherwise no debate is possible at all.
you say that only 2 of 1000 climate science papers contain 'bad science'. perhaps that is true for some areas but paleo reconstructions are almost all flawed with bad data and worse methodology. I feel sorry for the honest researchers who use reconstructions from someone like Mann. they have tainted their work through no fault of their own because peer review has failed so many times in the past, and the climate science community cannot find the fortitude to publically criticize past egregious errors.
.
SSDD -
Why would you "repeatedly" ask me for proof about a topic I've never mentioned?
Seriously, dude, at least try and present solid, coherent arguments, otherwise no debate is possible at all.
Ian C -
I am sure there have been real cases of poor science. In any field which involves a thousand scientists, there will be one or two bad apples. And I have no problem accepting that there may have been some serious errors made somewhere along the line and, who knows, maybe even a whitewash.
But these are straws in a haybarn. Of the last 1,000 papers published on various aspects of climate change, perhaps 2 will contain some bad science.
Perhaps the charts for Iceland were wongly tampered with. Another hundred charts in other countries were not.
I just think the bigger picture is more important.
I have looked also into a few of the points sceptics have raised on this board, and I have to say that the intellectual standard has not been much higher than that of Holocaust denial.
Oddball posted a list of scpetical scientistific organisations the other day - one was funded by the automotive industry, two by coal and one by the Moonist Church.
He then posted a petition signed by 58 million-odd people. It then turns out most were tricked into signing, and few would sign the petition again. Names like 'I.C.Ewe' also appeared on the list if signatories.
At the time I see sceptics dealing with this kind of thing, perhaps I'll look into more valid lines on enquiry.
Saigon- perhaps I am not getting my point across clearly enough.
the adjustments made to Iceland's temperature records are not only happening there. it is happening in a substantial portion of all temperature stations, perhaps the majority. a few months ago I googled GISS temp graphs, and for everyone I could find I then went to the GISS website and compared the old graph with the up-to-date graph. about 80% of the examples showed either cooling of the past, warming of the present, or both. the changes made to Iceland are neither extreme nor uncommon. if you consider the changes in Iceland to be ill-considered, then there are hundreds or even thousands of other stations that need to be examined.
you say that only 2 of 1000 climate science papers contain 'bad science'. perhaps that is true for some areas but paleo reconstructions are almost all flawed with bad data and worse methodology. I feel sorry for the honest researchers who use reconstructions from someone like Mann. they have tainted their work through no fault of their own because peer review has failed so many times in the past, and the climate science community cannot find the fortitude to publically criticize past egregious errors.
last spring Gergis et al passed peer review but was demolished in web review. their failing? they published a good methodology but then failed to follow it, which lead to retraction. if they has simply described the usual cherry-picking then the skeptics would have complained but nothing would have happened and Gergis2012 would have a prominent place in AR5.
In the latest update of CRUTEM3 we have made a number of corrections to the station level data on which the gridded product is based. The map below shows the locations of station data (grey dots) and highlights those that have been changed (coloured dots). Any subsequent changes will be similarly documented and we continue to welcome feedback.
SSDD
How does one 'de facto mention' something, without ever mentioning it?
Try and post on topic, coherent points.
Time and again on these threads you seem to keep banging on about some nonsensical red herring that no one else as the slightest interest in.
The vast majority of the land based stations are still in densely populated urban heat islands within 45 deg. latitude of the equator and for the rest of the globe the distribution is still as poor as it`s been since the data collection started. The number of sampling points out in the oceans, the land mass north of 50N and south of 50S are still as sparse as they have been before this "correction" .
