Analysis shows climate modeling fraud.. Pal Review by Journals

[westwall]

Here's another one for one gor you to suck on
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf

Sherwood Idso?

AHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

You're really scraping bottom here, by quoting the crazy dude as some kind of scientist.

Here's a clue, junior. When some kook types up some nonsense and puts it on the internet, that's not a "paper". And that's pretty much all you have, crazy people dumping crap on the internet.

So, Idso made some predictions in that 1998 paper.
---
Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena
that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These
studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise
the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C.
---

We _know_ the sensitivity is at least 2.0C, since half a doubling has raised temp by 1.0C.

Idso said < 0.4C. Reality says > 2.0C. Idso was about as wrong as it's possible to be. And you didn't know that, because you're remarkably ignorant of all the basics.

Look up Dunning-Kruger syndrome. It describes a person who is too stupid to understand how stupid he is. I'm hoping to cure your Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, by making you understand how goddamned stupid you are. I tried doing it more gently, but you're thick as a brick, hence you need to be beaten over the head regarding how goddamned stupid you are.

No we don't know silly kitty. Those are made up numbers based on "simple models". And as we all know simple models are for simpletons.

 

[mamooth]

No we don't know silly kitty. Those are made up numbers based on "simple models". And as we all know simple models are for simpletons.

If your theory requires the premise that the entire planet is conspiring against you, your theory is paranoid conspiracy gibberish.

Hence, your theory is paranoid conspiracy gibberish, being it requires the premise that the entire planet is faking temperature data.

On every topic, you've got nothing except such paranoid conspiracy gibberish. All the data says your cult is faking everything, so you invent these paranoid conspiracy theories to explain away the inconvenient facts.

If reality doesn't agree with you, you declare that reality is plotting against you.

If reality doesn't agree with us, we change our positions to match reality.

That's another reason why it's so good to be part of the reason-based community. We don't have a cult ordering us to make up crazy stories. We tell the simple truth as described by reality, and we "win". We never have to worry about getting tripped up because we've forgotten which particular lies we told before, as happens to all the denier cultists.

 

[westwall]

No we don't know silly kitty. Those are made up numbers based on "simple models". And as we all know simple models are for simpletons.

If your theory requires the premise that the entire planet is conspiring against you, your theory is paranoid conspiracy gibberish.

Hence, your theory is paranoid conspiracy gibberish, being it requires the premise that the entire planet is faking temperature data.

On every topic, you've got nothing except such paranoid conspiracy gibberish. All the data says your cult is faking everything, so you invent these paranoid conspiracy theories to explain away the inconvenient facts.

If reality doesn't agree with you, you declare that reality is plotting against you.

If reality doesn't agree with us, we change our positions to match reality.

That's another reason why it's so good to be part of the reason-based community. We don't have a cult ordering us to make up crazy stories. We tell the simple truth as described by reality, and we "win". We never have to worry about getting tripped up because we've forgotten which particular lies we told before, as happens to all the denier cultists.

The only people altering "data" to support their failed theories are you and yours silly kitty. There are 6,500 weather stations across the USA. Why are fewer than 1,000 of them being used? Hmmm? Let me guess, the ones being used are in wrongfully sited high heat urban areas. Do I get a cookie?

 

[mamooth]

Why are fewer than 1,000 of them being used?

Because that's all that's needed. Duh.

Adding more stations to an area that's already saturated changes the average not at all. Those familiar with the science know that. Hence, you don't know it.

Hmmm? Let me guess, the ones being used are in wrongfully sited high heat urban areas. Do I get a cookie?

No, no cookie, because you guessed wrong. You shouldn't guess. You should rely on hard data, like we do here in the reason-based community.

The dropped stations show exactly the same trend as the kept stations. If anything, the 1991 station drops introduced a cooling bias.

Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect

Global Update

Residual Analysis: GHCN Processor 1.0

Naturally, this is where you declare all that data is faked as well. It's what you do. It's all you do. Hence, my point that you rely entirely on paranoid conspiracy gibberish.

 

[IanC]

Let's face it. All the skeptics and all the alarmists are wrong in their explanations. Because they are incomplete at best.

If there is a 'right' answer, we wouldn't be able to recognize it. The person who came closest to that answer would still be wrong because he got it from the wrong reasons.

Everyone just plucks out some shiny pebbles from the pile of evidence and puts together a self satisfying hypothesis that strings the rocks into a necklace.

Consensus science has decided what type of necklace is the prettiest and has been polishing up their favourite pebbles. That's okay for jewelry but not for science.

I am not saying we cannot get closer and closer to the truth. But we can't get there by ignoring contradictory evidence, or giving more weight to the evidence we prefer.

 

[IanC]

Why are fewer than 1,000 of them being used?

Because that's all that's needed. Duh.

Adding more stations to an area that's already saturated changes the average not at all. Those familiar with the science know that. Hence, you don't know it.

Hmmm? Let me guess, the ones being used are in wrongfully sited high heat urban areas. Do I get a cookie?

No, no cookie, because you guessed wrong. You shouldn't guess. You should rely on hard data, like we do here in the reason-based community.

The dropped stations show exactly the same trend as the kept stations. If anything, the 1991 station drops introduced a cooling bias.

Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect

Global Update

Residual Analysis: GHCN Processor 1.0

Naturally, this is where you declare all that data is faked as well. It's what you do. It's all you do. Hence, my point that you rely entirely on paranoid conspiracy gibberish.

Changing the size and constituents of a data set cannot help but change the analysis.

In the case of US temps, the size has remained the same but the stations which are no longer reporting data have been infilled with estimated readings which are higher on average than the real ones.

There are always plausible sounding explanations for the endless changes to the data and the methodologies but it always seems to increase the trend. Dubious at best, much more likely to just be currying favour by giving favoured results.

 

[westwall]

Why are fewer than 1,000 of them being used?

Because that's all that's needed. Duh.

Adding more stations to an area that's already saturated changes the average not at all. Those familiar with the science know that. Hence, you don't know it.

Hmmm? Let me guess, the ones being used are in wrongfully sited high heat urban areas. Do I get a cookie?

No, no cookie, because you guessed wrong. You shouldn't guess. You should rely on hard data, like we do here in the reason-based community.

The dropped stations show exactly the same trend as the kept stations. If anything, the 1991 station drops introduced a cooling bias.

Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect

Global Update

Residual Analysis: GHCN Processor 1.0

Naturally, this is where you declare all that data is faked as well. It's what you do. It's all you do. Hence, my point that you rely entirely on paranoid conspiracy gibberish.

I think you meant to say "because those are the only ones that show warming, so we can't use the others because they refute our fraud!"

 

[GreenBean]

No we don't know silly kitty. Those are made up numbers based on "simple models". And as we all know simple models are for simpletons.

If your theory requires the premise that the entire planet is conspiring against you, your theory is paranoid conspiracy gibberish.

Hence, your theory is paranoid conspiracy gibberish, being it requires the premise that the entire planet is faking temperature data.

On every topic, you've got nothing except such paranoid conspiracy gibberish. All the data says your cult is faking everything, so you invent these paranoid conspiracy theories to explain away the inconvenient facts.

If reality doesn't agree with you, you declare that reality is plotting against you.

If reality doesn't agree with us, we change our positions to match reality.

That's another reason why it's so good to be part of the reason-based community. We don't have a cult ordering us to make up crazy stories. We tell the simple truth as described by reality, and we "win". We never have to worry about getting tripped up because we've forgotten which particular lies we told before, as happens to all the denier cultists.

The only people altering "data" to support their failed theories are you and yours silly kitty. There are 6,500 weather stations across the USA. Why are fewer than 1,000 of them being used? Hmmm? Let me guess, the ones being used are in wrongfully sited high heat urban areas. Do I get a cookie?

 

[mamooth]

Changing the size and constituents of a data set cannot help but change the analysis.

Yes, it just doesn't change it in a meaningful way.

That's what the links showed. Analyze 3000 sets or 1000 sets, you get the same result within a few hundredths of a degree. Hence, the extra 2000 sets are extraneous.

There's also the matter that, for your conspiracy to make sense, the vast socialist conspiracy must have been in place since 1991 or earlier, when the data set modification occurred. Yet in the intervening 26 years, none of the hundreds or thousands of people who had to have been involved has spilled the beans.

In the case of US temps, the size has remained the same but the stations which are no longer reporting data have been infilled with estimated readings which are higher on average than the real ones.

The data says that's the opposite of reality, as the set with more data points showed slightly less warming.

There are always plausible sounding explanations for the endless changes to the data and the methodologies but it always seems to increase the trend. Dubious at best, much more likely to just be currying favour by giving favoured results.

While that's a fine conspiracy, the data shows it's false. Both sides don't do it. Only the denier side fakes data and tries to rig conclusions that are consistent with their fanatical ideology. The rational side simply follows where the data leads.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here's another one for one gor you to suck on
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf

Sherwood Idso?

AHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

You're really scraping bottom here, by quoting the crazy dude as some kind of scientist.

Here's a clue, junior. When some kook types up some nonsense and puts it on the internet, that's not a "paper". And that's pretty much all you have, crazy people dumping crap on the internet.

So, Idso made some predictions in that 1998 paper.
---
Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena
that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These
studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise
the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C.
---

We _know_ the sensitivity is at least 2.0C, since half a doubling has raised temp by 1.0C.

Idso said < 0.4C. Reality says > 2.0C. Idso was about as wrong as it's possible to be. And you didn't know that, because you're remarkably ignorant of all the basics.

Look up Dunning-Kruger syndrome. It describes a person who is too stupid to understand how stupid he is. I'm hoping to cure your Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, by making you understand how goddamned stupid you are. I tried doing it more gently, but you're thick as a brick, hence you need to be beaten over the head regarding how goddamned stupid you are.

No we don't know silly kitty. Those are made up numbers based on "simple models". And as we all know simple models are for simpletons.

Mr. Westwall, you have been predicting cooling for seven years on this board. In that time we have had the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd warmest years on record. You are one to talk of models, as you have been 100% wrong in your predictions.

So, Mr. Westwall, your presentation at the upcoming AGU Conference will be on which day? I would be glad to post the video of you showing all those scientists there how wrong they are. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Why are fewer than 1,000 of them being used?

Because that's all that's needed. Duh.

Adding more stations to an area that's already saturated changes the average not at all. Those familiar with the science know that. Hence, you don't know it.

Hmmm? Let me guess, the ones being used are in wrongfully sited high heat urban areas. Do I get a cookie?

No, no cookie, because you guessed wrong. You shouldn't guess. You should rely on hard data, like we do here in the reason-based community.

The dropped stations show exactly the same trend as the kept stations. If anything, the 1991 station drops introduced a cooling bias.

Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect

Global Update

Residual Analysis: GHCN Processor 1.0

Naturally, this is where you declare all that data is faked as well. It's what you do. It's all you do. Hence, my point that you rely entirely on paranoid conspiracy gibberish.

Changing the size and constituents of a data set cannot help but change the analysis.

In the case of US temps, the size has remained the same but the stations which are no longer reporting data have been infilled with estimated readings which are higher on average than the real ones.

There are always plausible sounding explanations for the endless changes to the data and the methodologies but it always seems to increase the trend. Dubious at best, much more likely to just be currying favour by giving favoured results.

And all the satellite data is also a lie, correct? Ian, you are failing badly. The evidence and data says you are reaching desperately for anything that would support your political beliefs, rather than the clear direction the data and evidence points.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."

As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...

Consensus climate scientists:

1. Think that precision is accuracy

2. Think that a root-mean-square error is an energetic perturbation on the model

3. Think that climate models can be used to validate climate models

4. Do not understand calibration at all

5. Do not know that calibration error propagates into subsequent calculations

6. Do not know the difference between statistical uncertainty and physical error

7. Think that “±” uncertainty means positive error offset

8. Think that fortuitously cancelling errors remove physical uncertainty

9. Think that projection anomalies are physically accurate (never demonstrated)

10. Think that projection variance about a mean is identical to propagated error

11. Think that a “±K” uncertainty is a physically real temperature

12. Think that a “±K” uncertainty bar means the climate model itself is oscillating violently between ice-house and hot-house climate states

Item 12 is especially indicative of the general incompetence of consensus climate scientists.

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.

The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.

I’ve known this for a long time. I knew it shortly after Algore started flying around the country on his private jet to tell us that New York City will be underwater, and all the polar bears will be dead in 20 years. I remember reading everything I could about it.......for about 2 years. After that time I wondered why everything I read was more sci-fi than science. I’m slow, but I eventually figured it out. There never was solid scientific proof of anthropogenic global warming. It was a research paper that went viral, there was money to be made advancing the warped science “supporting” it, and a lot of people sold out. And it continues to this day. But eventually the truth will be known because science doesn’t lie.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

"Nothing is more infuriating than to have someone lecturing you on the characteristics of linear equations challenging you to disprove their finer points, when your whole position is predicated in a provable assertion that what is being modeled cannot be represented by linear equations in the first place."

The Earth is a NON-Linear chaotic system! now that's funny! The alarmists are trying to defend their positions and modeling by claiming the earth is a linear system...

Your right, but try to explain that to a dupe he can’t even understand what you wrote.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."

As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...

Consensus climate scientists:

1. Think that precision is accuracy

2. Think that a root-mean-square error is an energetic perturbation on the model

3. Think that climate models can be used to validate climate models

4. Do not understand calibration at all

5. Do not know that calibration error propagates into subsequent calculations

6. Do not know the difference between statistical uncertainty and physical error

7. Think that “±” uncertainty means positive error offset

8. Think that fortuitously cancelling errors remove physical uncertainty

9. Think that projection anomalies are physically accurate (never demonstrated)

10. Think that projection variance about a mean is identical to propagated error

11. Think that a “±K” uncertainty is a physically real temperature

12. Think that a “±K” uncertainty bar means the climate model itself is oscillating violently between ice-house and hot-house climate states

Item 12 is especially indicative of the general incompetence of consensus climate scientists.

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.

The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.

Great links. I’m not sure if I’ll read them. Not because I couldn’t learn anything, but more because I have other heavy ready in front.

I do wonder about the underlying debates in a forum like that however. Obviously you have the right people discussing it, but what science are they using. To have a real meaningful debate, we need to go back to the beginning of the science. What did we know in the 90’s when this mania got started. I don’t think there was enough evidence then to cause the debate today.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

This reminds me of when McIntyre pointed out that Steig's methodology and statistics were wrong on a cover article in Nature. They laughed and said what are you going to do about it? Write your own paper? So he did.

The peer review was onerous, and one reviewer demanded a specific addition. Once the paper was finally published, in a lower rated journal not Nature, Steig berated the addition that was forced on McIntyre as a condition for publishing. Unfortunately for Steig, he accidentally admitted that he was in fact the reviewer that demanded the addition.

Peer review is atrocious because of the double standard imposed on articles contrary to consensus climate science. Favourable papers slip through with obvious flaws while unfavourable ones are dissected with a fine tooth comb and usually rejected for non scientific reasons that are pathetic.

Science needs to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The peer review process should always scrutinized, and those peers who sway from objective scientific review need to be exposed.

 

[william the wie]

I thought Chaos was the result of unavoidable rounding error in measurement causing a predictive horizon, something like a few million years for easily visible stars. But I also thought that for weather/climate Storms including solar storms were the main source of uncertainty. For example the comet strike off of South Island, New Zealand purportedly in 1434 (there was a disappearing comet around that time but debate over a definite comet strike at that place happening at that definite time is in dispute), The two major Indonesian volcanic eruptions in the 1800s, the two recorded meteor strikes in Russia and no doubt stuff I'm ignorant of are still causing diminishing effects. Is that part of your argument?

 

[GreenBean]

Why are fewer than 1,000 of them being used?

Because that's all that's needed. Duh.

Adding more stations to an area that's already saturated changes the average not at all. Those familiar with the science know that. Hence, you don't know it.

Hmmm? Let me guess, the ones being used are in wrongfully sited high heat urban areas. Do I get a cookie?

No, no cookie, because you guessed wrong. You shouldn't guess. You should rely on hard data, like we do here in the reason-based community.

The dropped stations show exactly the same trend as the kept stations. If anything, the 1991 station drops introduced a cooling bias.

Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect

Global Update

Residual Analysis: GHCN Processor 1.0

Naturally, this is where you declare all that data is faked as well. It's what you do. It's all you do. Hence, my point that you rely entirely on paranoid conspiracy gibberish.

Changing the size and constituents of a data set cannot help but change the analysis.

In the case of US temps, the size has remained the same but the stations which are no longer reporting data have been infilled with estimated readings which are higher on average than the real ones.

There are always plausible sounding explanations for the endless changes to the data and the methodologies but it always seems to increase the trend. Dubious at best, much more likely to just be currying favour by giving favoured results.

And all the satellite data is also a lie, correct? Ian, you are failing badly. The evidence and data says you are reaching desperately for anything that would support your political beliefs, rather than the clear direction the data and evidence points.

IF and that's a very IF ,climate change is for real than the left has no one to blame but themselves for their inability to convince the general public. The left has lied consistently about anything and everything to advance the globalist agenda [The boy who cried wolf...]. Climate Change is no exception. In the words of Obamas mentor "Never let a good crisis go to waste" ... assuming that it could possibly be for real the leftards are using it in their relentless agenda to drive American and Western exceptionalism into the dirt. My gut feeling is that it is not as there are many many instances of politicized science and skewered numbers that have been exposed. It's so very sad that a pack of delusional dullards lead around like ravenous sheep are doing so much harm to the rest of the world thinking they are doing good ... sadn and sickening

 

[GreenBean]

This reminds me of when McIntyre pointed out that Steig's methodology and statistics were wrong on a cover article in Nature. They laughed and said what are you going to do about it? Write your own paper? So he did.

The peer review was onerous, and one reviewer demanded a specific addition. Once the paper was finally published, in a lower rated journal not Nature, Steig berated the addition that was forced on McIntyre as a condition for publishing. Unfortunately for Steig, he accidentally admitted that he was in fact the reviewer that demanded the addition.

Peer review is atrocious because of the double standard imposed on articles contrary to consensus climate science. Favourable papers slip through with obvious flaws while unfavourable ones are dissected with a fine tooth comb and usually rejected for non scientific reasons that are pathetic.

Science needs to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The peer review process should always scrutinized, and those peers who sway from objective scientific review need to be exposed.

Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions (see, for example, my recent column debunking false claims that global warming is causing a decline in wheat production), but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may well set a new low. However, climate realists can make lemonade from EDF’s preposterous mailer by using it to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers.

EDF has assembled what it believes to be the 10 most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook, yet each assertion either backfires on alarmists or has been proven false. While reading how flawed EDF’s assertions are, remember these are the very best arguments global warming alarmists can make. Open-minded readers should have very little difficulty dismissing the mythical global warming crisis after examining the top 10 assertions in the alarmist playbook.

Alarmist Assertion #1

“Bats Drop from the Sky – In 2014, a scorching summer heat wave caused more than 100,000 bats to literally drop dead and fall from the sky in Queensland, Australia.”

The Facts

Global warming alarmists’ preferred electricity source – wind power – kills nearly 1 million bats every year (to say nothing of the more than 500,000 birds killed every year) in the United States alone. This appalling death toll occurs every year even while wind power produces just 3% of U.S. electricity. Ramping up wind power to 10, 20, or 30% of U.S. electricity production would likely increase annual bat kills to 10-to-30 million every year. Killing 30 million bats every year in response to dubious claims that global warming might once in a great while kill 100,000 bats makes no sense.


Just as importantly, alarmists present no evidence that global warming caused the summer heat wave in a notoriously hot desert near the equator. To the contrary, climate change theory and objective data show our recent global warming is occurring primarily in the winter, toward the poles, and at night.

Australia’s highest recorded temperature occurred more than half a century ago, and only two of Australia’s seven states have set their all-time temperature record during the past 40 years. Indeed, Queensland’s 2014 heat wave paled in comparison to the 1972 heat wave that occurred 42 years of global warming ago. If global warming caused the 2014 Queensland heat wave, why wasn’t it as severe as the 1972 Queensland heat wave? Blaming every single summer heat wave or extreme weather event on global warming is a stale and discredited tactic in the alarmist playbook. Objective science proves extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and droughts have become less frequent and less severe as a result of the Earth’s recent modest warming.

 

[westwall]

Why are fewer than 1,000 of them being used?

Because that's all that's needed. Duh.

Adding more stations to an area that's already saturated changes the average not at all. Those familiar with the science know that. Hence, you don't know it.

Hmmm? Let me guess, the ones being used are in wrongfully sited high heat urban areas. Do I get a cookie?

No, no cookie, because you guessed wrong. You shouldn't guess. You should rely on hard data, like we do here in the reason-based community.

The dropped stations show exactly the same trend as the kept stations. If anything, the 1991 station drops introduced a cooling bias.

Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect

Global Update

Residual Analysis: GHCN Processor 1.0

Naturally, this is where you declare all that data is faked as well. It's what you do. It's all you do. Hence, my point that you rely entirely on paranoid conspiracy gibberish.

Changing the size and constituents of a data set cannot help but change the analysis.

In the case of US temps, the size has remained the same but the stations which are no longer reporting data have been infilled with estimated readings which are higher on average than the real ones.

There are always plausible sounding explanations for the endless changes to the data and the methodologies but it always seems to increase the trend. Dubious at best, much more likely to just be currying favour by giving favoured results.

And all the satellite data is also a lie, correct? Ian, you are failing badly. The evidence and data says you are reaching desperately for anything that would support your political beliefs, rather than the clear direction the data and evidence points.

IF and that's a very IF ,climate change is for real than the left has no one to blame but themselves for their inability to convince the general public. The left has lied consistently about anything and everything to advance the globalist agenda [The boy who cried wolf...]. Climate Change is no exception. In the words of Obamas mentor "Never let a good crisis go to waste" ... assuming that it could possibly be for real the leftards are using it in their relentless agenda to drive American and Western exceptionalism into the dirt. My gut feeling is that it is not as there are many many instances of politicized science and skewered numbers that have been exposed. It's so very sad that a pack of delusional dullards lead around like ravenous sheep are doing so much harm to the rest of the world thinking they are doing good ... sadn and sickening

Climate change is very real. Mans contribution to it is what is not real.

 

[GreenBean]

Why are fewer than 1,000 of them being used?

Because that's all that's needed. Duh.

Adding more stations to an area that's already saturated changes the average not at all. Those familiar with the science know that. Hence, you don't know it.

Hmmm? Let me guess, the ones being used are in wrongfully sited high heat urban areas. Do I get a cookie?

No, no cookie, because you guessed wrong. You shouldn't guess. You should rely on hard data, like we do here in the reason-based community.

The dropped stations show exactly the same trend as the kept stations. If anything, the 1991 station drops introduced a cooling bias.

Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect

Global Update

Residual Analysis: GHCN Processor 1.0

Naturally, this is where you declare all that data is faked as well. It's what you do. It's all you do. Hence, my point that you rely entirely on paranoid conspiracy gibberish.

Changing the size and constituents of a data set cannot help but change the analysis.

In the case of US temps, the size has remained the same but the stations which are no longer reporting data have been infilled with estimated readings which are higher on average than the real ones.

There are always plausible sounding explanations for the endless changes to the data and the methodologies but it always seems to increase the trend. Dubious at best, much more likely to just be currying favour by giving favoured results.

And all the satellite data is also a lie, correct? Ian, you are failing badly. The evidence and data says you are reaching desperately for anything that would support your political beliefs, rather than the clear direction the data and evidence points.

IF and that's a very IF ,climate change is for real than the left has no one to blame but themselves for their inability to convince the general public. The left has lied consistently about anything and everything to advance the globalist agenda [The boy who cried wolf...]. Climate Change is no exception. In the words of Obamas mentor "Never let a good crisis go to waste" ... assuming that it could possibly be for real the leftards are using it in their relentless agenda to drive American and Western exceptionalism into the dirt. My gut feeling is that it is not as there are many many instances of politicized science and skewered numbers that have been exposed. It's so very sad that a pack of delusional dullards lead around like ravenous sheep are doing so much harm to the rest of the world thinking they are doing good ... sadn and sickening

Climate change is very real. Mans contribution to it is what is not real.

So you believe it is natural / cyclical I would assume.