New Improved Hockey Stick?

[Saigon]

SSDD .-

and around we go again, with more lies and nonsense.

Once again, SSSDD - there are AT LEAST 40 major sources of data.

There is no evidence, no suggestion and no accusations of 'tempering' with any of them, nor have you ever established that any of the so-called 'tampering' was anything more evil than adjusting for a weather station having been moved uphill.

 

[SSDD]

Of course you are going to lie and post nonsense. I have posted plenty of evidence of data tampering. Thus far, you have posted nothing that represents evidence of a pristine, untampered temperature record from anywhere. All you have done is close your eyes, refuse to see what is before you and maintain your fantasy.

quote=siagon=There is no evidence, no suggestion and no accusations of 'tempering' with any of them, nor have you ever established that any of the so-called 'tampering' was anything more evil than adjusting for a weather station having been moved uphill.[/quote]

I have asked both you and thunder for a rational, scientifically sound reason why 754 months have been systematically cooled since 2008 with 98% of those months being prior t5o 1960....and why 793 months have been systematically warmed since 2008 with 72% of those months being post 1959. To date, neither one of you has been able to offer up a rational, scientifically sound reason for such warming and cooling of the temperature record.

The reason is obvious but if some rational, scientifically sound reason for cooling 739 months from 53 to 121 years ago, by all means, tell me. Tell me what present piece of software might exist that could say exactly what might have been wrong with measurements so long ago with a degree of accuracy of greater than a tenth of a degree. Lets hear an explanation.

And why so many warming months since post 1959 when a known heat bias was entering the record as a result of urban heat islands? Doesn't logic tell you that if you know you have a warm bias entering your record, and you aren't going to relocate your gathering equipment that you need to compensate for that known warm bias by cooling the temperature down by the known amount of the warm bias? That is what logic tells me.

Do explain why you would systematically warm a period of time known to have a heat bias. What rational scientifically sound reason might exist for that?

 

[Saigon]

Thus far, you have posted nothing that represents evidence of a pristine, untampered temperature record from anywhere.

I'm happy to post evidence, as always, SSDD, providing that you commit to looking at it seriously and responding to it intelligently.

Do you agree to do this?


Asking people to explain why data was changed without even telling us which data source you mean, without linking it or without telling us which data you refer to - childish. If you want to make a case - perhaps start a new thread and present all the facts and sources.

 

[bripat9643]

Thus far, you have posted nothing that represents evidence of a pristine, untampered temperature record from anywhere.

I'm happy to post evidence, as always, SSDD, providing that you commit to looking at it seriously and responding to it intelligently.

Do you agree to do this?


Asking people to explain why data was changed without even telling us which data source you mean, without linking it or without telling us which data you refer to - childish. If you want to make a case - perhaps start a new thread and present all the facts and sources.

Here ya go:

 

[bripat9643]

Thus far, you have posted nothing that represents evidence of a pristine, untampered temperature record from anywhere.

I'm happy to post evidence, as always, SSDD, providing that you commit to looking at it seriously and responding to it intelligently.

Do you agree to do this?


Asking people to explain why data was changed without even telling us which data source you mean, without linking it or without telling us which data you refer to - childish. If you want to make a case - perhaps start a new thread and present all the facts and sources.

More evidence of data tampering:

 

[Saigon]

Bripat -

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious - adjustments are not evidence of 'tampering'.

Any centre which collects weather data over a century will have made adjustments in order to exclude other factors, such as altitude and wind, when weather stations are moved. In most cases, this information is available from the source, and in some cases you can actually see graphs showing the data without and without the adjustments.

Also, keep in mind that for SSDD's global socialist conspiracy to be true - essentially all data from the past century, compiled from 40 different independent sources, would have needed to have been faked. It's not VEY likely, is it?

 

[bripat9643]

Thus far, you have posted nothing that represents evidence of a pristine, untampered temperature record from anywhere.

I'm happy to post evidence, as always, SSDD, providing that you commit to looking at it seriously and responding to it intelligently.

Do you agree to do this?


Asking people to explain why data was changed without even telling us which data source you mean, without linking it or without telling us which data you refer to - childish. If you want to make a case - perhaps start a new thread and present all the facts and sources.

Here's a paper all about NCDC data tampering with numerous charts:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf

 

[bripat9643]

Bripat -

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious - adjustments are not evidence of 'tampering'.

Any centre which collects weather data over a century will have made adjustments in order to exclude other factors, such as altitude and wind, when weather stations are moved. In most cases, this information is available from the source, and in some cases you can actually see graphs showing the data without and without the adjustments.

For your information, I posted charts showing the data with and without the adjustments.

Any 2nd grader who looks at the two charts can see there is a systematic bias in the "adjustments."

 

[SSDD]

Thus far, you have posted nothing that represents evidence of a pristine, untampered temperature record from anywhere.

I'm happy to post evidence, as always, SSDD, providing that you commit to looking at it seriously and responding to it intelligently.

Do you agree to do this?

You always claim to be happy to post actual evidence but invariably fail to do so.

Asking people to explain why data was changed without even telling us which data source you mean, without linking it or without telling us which data you refer to - childish. If you want to make a case - perhaps start a new thread and present all the facts and sources.

For temperatures that old, the keeper of the data is irrelavent. Why would the past be systematically lowered while the present warmed even though a known warm bias was creeping into the data? Give me a reason and who has done it is irrelavent even though I have already told you whose data base it is more than once.

 

[SSDD]

Bripat -

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious - adjustments are not evidence of 'tampering'.

They are in the absence of any rational, scientifically sound reason for systematically lowering the temperature of the past and raising the temperature of the present.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Often I do not post evidence because you won't look at anything that is posted. You know that as well as I do.

Hence, if I'm going to spend 15 minutes finding something, I'd prefer it to be for a poster open minded enough to read the information they asked for.

Either way you but it - there are still more than 40 sources of climate data out there, and very few of them have ever been accused of anything except good science.

Again, you simply do not have a case here.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Often I do not post evidence because you won't look at anything that is posted. You know that as well as I do.

You don't post evidence because there is none to support your claims. Being someone who actually does read the science rather than have it spoonfed to me by charlatans such as those at SS I know there is no evidence. That is why I keep asking because I know already that none exists and like seeing you squirm and claim that you won't post it because I wont read it as if no one else ever reads these forums.

Again, you simply do not have a case here.

It is you who doesn't have a case. When I say data exists to prove my point, I post it and 99% of the time it is peer reviewed data published in reputable journals. It is you who claims evidence that you don't ever seem to be able to produce and when you do produce something it doesn't support the point you were trying to make....further evidence that you really dont have a clue and just cut and paste what you think will help your argument.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I didn't think you were interested, somehow!

Once again - there ARE at least 40 independent sources of national climate data, and any one of those will prove the basic concepts of climate science.

By all means get back to us when you are ready to deal with that.

Until then, I'll leave you to your favourite source - it was 'The Big Vagina Colouring Book' wasn't it?

It is you who doesn't have a case.

I'm not the one claiming a massive socialist conpiracy involving tens of thousands of people in a hundred countries, bauble.

 

[SSDD]

Once again - there ARE at least 40 independent sources of national climate data, and any one of those will prove the basic concepts of climate science.

Again, there is evidence of wide spread data tampering. Denying it won't make it go away.

Until then, I'll leave you to your favourite source - it was 'The Big Vagina Colouring Book' wasn't it?

You seem to be very interested in that book. Perhps I can ask my wife to give me a site were you can get one of your own and perhaps see what one looks like for yourself.

Do you want to know where she ordered it from so you can get one?

I'm not the one claiming a massive socialist conpiracy involving tens of thousands of people in a hundred countries, bauble.

Neither am I. I am stating the fact of an error cascade but you aren't nearly smart enough to understand that, so you fabricate conspiracy in an effort to divert attention from the fact that you can't actually make your case.

You have well and truely lost this discussion....may as well slink away.

 

[SSDD]

Here siagon, since you seem so interested, my wife says that you can get yourself a copy for your very own and finally see what one looks like at amazon.

Here is the address for you:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Coloring-Book-Vaginas/dp/B000R0HU92]The Big Coloring Book of Vaginas: Morgan Hastings: 9781424340354: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


Better ask your mom if you are grown up enough for something like this though. Your strange interest in the book makes you seem to be in your early teens...unlike the retiree that my wife bought it for.

 

[RollingThunder]

Once again - there ARE at least 40 independent sources of national climate data, and any one of those will prove the basic concepts of climate science.

Again, there is evidence of wide spread data tampering. Denying it won't make it go away.

There is no "evidence of wide spread data tampering" except in the mythology of the braindead denier culitists. Endlessly repeating your bogus claims won't make them magically become real.

I'm not the one claiming a massive socialist conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people in a hundred countries, bauble.

Neither am I.

Yes you are, repeatedly and often. Your every other post contains some whiff of your moronic conspiracy theory BS. According to you, many thousands of scientists all around the world are being bribed to alter the temperature records.

SSDD - Very clearly there are DOZENS of source, but try the national climate centres of any major country. Every major country has one, and most are easy to find. I can link them for you if you are willing to commit to looking at them sensibly.

Yeah, and you have been given evidence of tampering in those centers as well. Money speaks all languages.

Another one of your insane conspiracy theories, you poor deluded retard. Apparently you now imagine that all of the scientists in the world are in on this absurd conspiracy and that they are all taking bribes (from who exactly?) to alter the records and fudge the numbers. LOLOLOLOL. And you're actually too retarded to see how crazy that is. LOL.

I am stating the fact of an error cascade but you aren't nearly smart enough to understand that,

"Error cascade" is the new buzz word among denier cultists. They are far too ignorant about science to actually know what it means but they've been fed some more propaganda that only makes sense to ignorant retards.

so you fabricate conspiracy in an effort to divert attention from the fact that you can't actually make your case. You have well and truely lost this discussion....may as well slink away.

LOLOLOLOL....still talking to yourself a lot, I see. LOLOL. Your unconscious self honesty is amazing to behold. You denier cultists do indeed fabricate absurd conspiracy theories involving tens of thousands of scientists from over a hundred countries in your vain attempts to deny the reality of the temperature records and other climate data. Factually and scientifically you have no leg to stand on so you invent these conspiracies to cover "the fact that you can't actually make your case" based on any real world facts or evidence. You have totally lost this discussion but you are too retarded and brainwashed to comprehend that fact.

 

[SSDD]

Too bad you aren't very bright thunder. Think error cascade is a new term....can't look at obvious evidence of data tampering and understand what you are seeing....can't even look at steaming piles of crap like the latest hockey stick and wonder what sort of science actually allows that sort of garbage through peer review for publishing.

 

[RollingThunder]

Too bad you aren't very bright thunder.

Too bad you're soooo stupid you don't realize how much smarter everyone else is.

Think error cascade is a new term....

It's not a "new term" in certain fields of science but it is a new buzz-word among AGW denier cultists. The "error cascade" idea is essentially a false analogy from chaos theory and computer science -- it implies that if initial data is wrong (or, as deniers would have us believe, outright falsified), that all future conclusions are tainted by the error. This makes sense in computer science and mathematics, but in the scientific process very few theories are accepted based on a body of evidence with only a single line of corroboration; in this case, the hypothesis of global warming is backed up with the real-world effects of global warming such as glacier melt, increased storm activity and temperature extremes, and changes in the natural range of climate sensitive species, among other things.

can't look at obvious evidence of data tampering and understand what you are seeing....

Oh, I look at the supposed "evidence of data tampering" that you present and I understand quite clearly that you are a scientifically ignorant idiot who doesn't have the education in science or the intelligence to understand what the scientists are doing when they make adjustments to the temperature records for entirely valid reasons so you swallow the lies and propaganda the fossil fuel industry is pushing to discredit the conclusions of the climate scientists that tell us the world must end the burning of fossil fuels or face environmental catastrophe. Ending the burning of fossil fuels would also end the trillion dollar a year profit stream that goes to the ones locating, extracting or mining, refining, shipping, and selling fossil fuels so no wonder they are desperately trying to confuse the issue with lies, misinformation and propaganda.

can't even look at steaming piles of crap like the latest hockey stick and wonder what sort of science actually allows that sort of garbage through peer review for publishing.

I look at your denial of reality and lack of any real knowledge of this subject and I laugh at your delusions. You sound like a 'Flat Earther' talking about the "faked moon landing".

 

[skookerasbil]

From todays REALCLEARENERGY


Wind = A faith based initiative ( ie: its a fucking joke) >>>>

WIND ENERGY: A faith based initiative - Your Houston News: Opinion



Solar panel life expectancy = shit ( ie: return on investment sucks)>>>>>

Graph of the Day: Myth of solar PV energy payback time : Renew Economy



Cost matters assholes......maybe not the AGW religion, but it does to the rest of us >>>>

[/IMG]

Which is why decades from now, the asshole AGW OC's wont have moved the the goalposts more than a couple of feet!!!! >>>>>>>>

But dont take my word for it..........see what they said in FORBES today about the disaster with Germany's Green Energy initiatives >>>>>

Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders - Forbes

Yet these fucktards spend hours and hours a day in this forum trying to win a debate on the climate science!!!!! These assholes......might as well be spending hours a day in a group navel contemplation session hoping to change the dynamic related to the "consensus science"!!!! Like I said earlier in the thread......its a connect the dots issue.

 

[RollingThunder]

From todays REALCLEARENERGY
Wind = A faith based initiative ( ie: its a fucking joke) >>>>
WIND ENERGY: A faith based initiative - Your Houston News: Opinion
Solar panel life expectancy = shit ( ie: return on investment sucks)>>>>>
Graph of the Day: Myth of solar PV energy payback time : Renew Economy
Cost matters assholes......maybe not the AGW religion, but it does to the rest of us >>>>
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/LCOG_2012.png
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e...-costs-are-well-above-fossil-fuel-costs-1.jpg
Which is why decades from now, the asshole AGW OC's wont have moved the the goalposts more than a couple of feet!!!! >>>>>>>>
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/EIA-annual-outlook-2011-2040.png
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/hybrid_vs_diesel_market_share.jpg
But dont take my word for it..........see what they said in FORBES today about the disaster with Germany's Green Energy initiatives >>>>>
Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders - Forbes
Yet these fucktards spend hours and hours a day in this forum trying to win a debate on the climate science!!!!! These assholes......might as well be spending hours a day in a group navel contemplation session hoping to change the dynamic related to the "consensus science"!!!! Like I said earlier in the thread......its a connect the dots issue.

Once again, kookster, you demonstrate that you have no idea whatsoever what the issues actually are, you poor clueless retard.