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

[orogenicman]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[jc456]

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.

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

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

 

[westwall]

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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

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]

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.

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

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

 

[mamooth]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

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]

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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

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]

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.

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

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.