NOAA/NCDC Commit Scienctic Fraud... Through Data Manipulation..

[Crick]

If you disagree, why don't you show us some GLOBAL data that indicates adjustments have caused an unjustified increase?

 

[IanC]

Muller stated that one third of long running stations (70 years, back to about 1940) had cooling trends. I have looked at a lot of BEST graphs and I don't think I have seen one station that still has a cooling trend after adjustments to 'meet expectations'.

Care to show us a dozen examples of BEST stations that still have a cooling trend? Honestly, I would like to see them.

 

[mamooth]

Ian, nobody cares about whatever little nuance of your conspiracy theory it is that you're babbling about today. I don't care if 9/11 truthers babble about thermite nanoparticles, I don't care if antivaxxers babble about mercury, and I don't care if you babble about Mueller. You're just tossing out more red herrings to deflect from the big picture.

That big picture would be that the total adjustments to the temperature data record make the warming look smaller, and that proves your conspiracy theory is garbage.

 

[jc456]

Yes, I am familiar with logarithms. What do they have to do with anything under discussion?

Then you have no idea how CO2 works, which means you don't know science.

 

[jc456]

Ian, nobody cares about whatever little nuance of your conspiracy theory it is that you're babbling about today. I don't care if 9/11 truthers babble about thermite nanoparticles, I don't care if antivaxxers babble about mercury, and I don't care if you babble about Mueller. You're just tossing out more red herrings to deflect from the big picture.

That big picture would be that the total adjustments to the temperature data record make the warming look smaller, and that proves your conspiracy theory is garbage.

You do realize that works both ways? Just once I'd like to see you actually show us all something related to CO2 that can cause a catastrophe! Ah, but you can't.

 

[IanC]

Ian, nobody cares about whatever little nuance of your conspiracy theory it is that you're babbling about today. I don't care if 9/11 truthers babble about thermite nanoparticles, I don't care if antivaxxers babble about mercury, and I don't care if you babble about Mueller. You're just tossing out more red herrings to deflect from the big picture.

That big picture would be that the total adjustments to the temperature data record make the warming look smaller, and that proves your conspiracy theory is garbage.

Are you an American? Doesn't the American govt pass spending bills that have all sorts of add-ons that would never be accepted except for the main issue in the bill?

Adjustments to the temperature falls into the same category. Some are necessary. Some should be made but the actual method doesn't give realistic results. Some are arbitrary and are made simply to push results in a certain direction.

Mamooth wants to bundle all the adjustments into a single bill and call them equally necessary. They are not. The biggest warming adjustments are to highly uncertain SSTs and the reasons are straightforward. The last decade's worth of homogenization adjustments to land stations are arbitrary and used to manufacture warming trends that were either non existent or smaller. And riddled with mistakes that no one seems to be in a rush to correct unless it causes cooling ( but it seldom seems to go in that direction).

I am sure this will just bring more ad homs but I have posted up lots of examples and seen many more.

 

[mamooth]

Mamooth wants to bundle all the adjustments into a single bill and call them equally necessary.

Don't make stupid crap up. I've said or implied no such thing. You're just waving your hands around wildly and deflecting again.

They are not. The biggest warming adjustments are to highly uncertain SSTs and the reasons are straightforward. The last decade's worth of homogenization adjustments to land stations are arbitrary and used to manufacture warming trends that were either non existent or smaller. And riddled with mistakes that no one seems to be in a rush to correct unless it causes cooling ( but it seldom seems to go in that direction).

For the purpose of debunking your conspiracy theory, that was all irrelevant.

The total adjustments make the warming look smaller. Those adjustments are deliberately added in. For purposes of debunking your conspiracy, those two points are the only things that matter. It doesn't matter at all why those adjustments were made, or if they're valid.

No matter how much you try to evade the point, it still only matters that the adjustments make the warming look smaller, and that they were deliberately made.

Therefore, if anything, scientists are adjusting the temperature record data to make the warming look smaller.

Therefore, your conspiracy theory is pure bullshit.

I am sure this will just bring more ad homs but I have posted up lots of examples and seen many more.

I'm sure you're not honest enough to address the actual issue. Instead, you'll keep trying to evade by whining about how mean I am and tossing out more crap that doesn't mean a thing.

What you won't do is answer a simple question.

If your conspiracy says scientists adjust the data to make the warming look bigger, why have they adjusted the data to make the warming look smaller?

 

[jc456]

Mamooth wants to bundle all the adjustments into a single bill and call them equally necessary.

Don't make stupid crap up. I've said or implied no such thing. You're just waving your hands around wildly and deflecting again.

They are not. The biggest warming adjustments are to highly uncertain SSTs and the reasons are straightforward. The last decade's worth of homogenization adjustments to land stations are arbitrary and used to manufacture warming trends that were either non existent or smaller. And riddled with mistakes that no one seems to be in a rush to correct unless it causes cooling ( but it seldom seems to go in that direction).

For the purpose of debunking your conspiracy theory, that was all irrelevant.

The total adjustments make the warming look smaller. Those adjustments are deliberately added in. For purposes of debunking your conspiracy, those two points are the only things that matter. It doesn't matter at all why those adjustments were made, or if they're valid.

No matter how much you try to evade the point, it still only matters that the adjustments make the warming look smaller, and that they were deliberately made.

Therefore, if anything, scientists are adjusting the temperature record data to make the warming look smaller.

Therefore, your conspiracy theory is pure bullshit.

I am sure this will just bring more ad homs but I have posted up lots of examples and seen many more.

I'm sure you're not honest enough to address the actual issue. Instead, you'll keep trying to evade by whining about how mean I am and tossing out more crap that doesn't mean a thing.

What you won't do is answer a simple question.

If your conspiracy says scientists adjust the data to make the warming look bigger, why have they adjusted the data to make the warming look smaller?

Huh? Waving your hands around wildly, Is your schtick. You know all the data is manipulated correct that's what the 0P says. It's up to you to disprove it. Get it?

 

[IanC]

Venema and Cowtan came up with a pretty good talking point.

One large correction to pre WWII SSTs which was needed so that they made any sense at all can now be used to deflect all the complaints about arbitrary corrections to land temps.

Brilliant bit of propaganda, especially if you simply refuse to discuss any other corrections on a case-by-case basis.

 

[mamooth]

Amd in response to his conspiracy theory being debunked, Ian heads even deeper down into the conspiracy rabbit hole, and declares the sea temp records are adjusted to make the warming look smaller only to hide the adjustments of the land temps.

And the new conspiracy theory still doesn't make a bit of sense. If scientists only presented land temps, it might make sense, but since scientists always present the global average, which includes the oceans, the temps scientists present have always been adjusted to make warming look smaller. And that means Ian's new conspiracy is garbage too.

However, I don't think Ian is concerned any longer with making sense. He's concerned with showing there's some kind of conspiracy about something somewhere, which proves how he hasn't been played for a sucker.

 

[skookerasbil]

Amd in response to his conspiracy theory being debunked, Ian heads even deeper down into the conspiracy rabbit hole, and declares the sea temp records are adjusted to make the warming look smaller only to hide the adjustments of the land temps.

And the new conspiracy theory still doesn't make a bit of sense. If scientists only presented land temps, it might make sense, but since scientists always present the global average, which includes the oceans, the temps scientists present have always been adjusted to make warming look smaller. And that means Ian's new conspiracy is garbage too.

However, I don't think Ian is concerned any longer with making sense. He's concerned with showing there's some kind of conspiracy about something somewhere, which proves how he hasn't been played for a sucker.

"conspiracy theory"


What a mental case..........the IPCC and NASA have admitted the data is rigged. Links posted up in here a billion times!!!

But since I excel in making bozo's look like bozo's................


IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud


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

Global warming rigged Here s the email I d need to see George Monbiot Comment is free The Guardian

Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions - NaturalNews.com

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




Forum viewers will note one significant thing...........check out the feedback from a couple of posters and what do you see?

You see psychopathic, incoherent rants that are nothing but conjecture about "rabbit holes"......."conspiracies"......."pure bullshit".......when referring to skeptics. All opinion............no links. And oh.....note the conjecture posts are virtually complete duplicates from thread to thread. Its fascinating.........but the optics are shit for curious viewers looking in on a topic.



ghey

 

[skookerasbil]

Check out this video and try to guess which poster on this thread this may well be.................





These climate crusaders are fucking crazy..................Im talking miserable lunatic motherfuckers................

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/mustang-burnout-o.gif.html][/URL]

 

[mamooth]

Since we're on the topic of the various mental problems and sleaze tactics of the deniers, let's look at one of their common tactics, sealioning.

Wondermark Archive 1062 The Terrible Sea Lion

Normal rules of debate state that you should know WTF you're talking about before jumping in. And that if you don't, you shouldn't be taken seriously.

So what's the purpose of denier sealioning? It's bad faith questioning. They don't want answers.

As we've seen so many times, if you actually take the time to give the answer, they just move on to "Oh yeah? Well then what about ...". It never ends.

OTOH, if you tell them to go look at the references, you're accused of running from discussion. You can't win.

The purpose of denier sealioning is not to gain knowledge. If they wanted to gain knowledge, they could easily do it on their own time. The purpose of denier sealioning is to waste your time and try to find some gotcha statement, or to claim that you're unwilling to support your claim if you won't waste your time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Since we're on the topic of the various mental problems and sleaze tactics of the deniers, let's look at one of their common tactics, sealioning.

Wondermark Archive 1062 The Terrible Sea Lion

Normal rules of debate state that you should know WTF you're talking about before jumping in. And that if you don't, you shouldn't be taken seriously.

So what's the purpose of denier sealioning? It's bad faith questioning. They don't want answers.

As we've seen so many times, if you actually take the time to give the answer, they just move on to "Oh yeah? Well then what about ...". It never ends.

OTOH, if you tell them to go look at the references, you're accused of running from discussion. You can't win.

The purpose of denier sealioning is not to gain knowledge. If they wanted to gain knowledge, they could easily do it on their own time. The purpose of denier sealioning is to waste your time and try to find some gotcha statement, or to claim that you're unwilling to support your claim if you won't waste your time.

^ AGWCult member, no experiments. All that's ever presented is altered data run through flawed computer models

 

[jc456]

Amd in response to his conspiracy theory being debunked, Ian heads even deeper down into the conspiracy rabbit hole, and declares the sea temp records are adjusted to make the warming look smaller only to hide the adjustments of the land temps.

And the new conspiracy theory still doesn't make a bit of sense. If scientists only presented land temps, it might make sense, but since scientists always present the global average, which includes the oceans, the temps scientists present have always been adjusted to make warming look smaller. And that means Ian's new conspiracy is garbage too.

However, I don't think Ian is concerned any longer with making sense. He's concerned with showing there's some kind of conspiracy about something somewhere, which proves how he hasn't been played for a sucker.

why? why do they feel the need to do what you just posted? Is it because they aren't accurate? not calibrated? not there? Dude/dudette, that makes no sense.

except altering data. That's all it is. Why can't you just admit the data is altered? Then you can explain why.

 

[jc456]

Since we're on the topic of the various mental problems and sleaze tactics of the deniers, let's look at one of their common tactics, sealioning.

Wondermark Archive 1062 The Terrible Sea Lion

Normal rules of debate state that you should know WTF you're talking about before jumping in. And that if you don't, you shouldn't be taken seriously.

So what's the purpose of denier sealioning? It's bad faith questioning. They don't want answers.

As we've seen so many times, if you actually take the time to give the answer, they just move on to "Oh yeah? Well then what about ...". It never ends.

OTOH, if you tell them to go look at the references, you're accused of running from discussion. You can't win.

The purpose of denier sealioning is not to gain knowledge. If they wanted to gain knowledge, they could easily do it on their own time. The purpose of denier sealioning is to waste your time and try to find some gotcha statement, or to claim that you're unwilling to support your claim if you won't waste your time.

can you explain what this is supposed to represent? Quite frankly the sea lion in your comic was rude. Followed them into their home and wouldn't leave when asked to. so was your point to show how clueless you are on how debate works? LOL

 

[mamooth]

In a fine bit of irony, you just illustrated how it works.

 

[SSDD]

Since we're on the topic of the various mental problems and sleaze tactics of the deniers, let's look at one of their common tactics, sealioning.

You people are so predictable it is pathetic....and you have one response for everything...he shows you actual film...observed, empirical evidence of how wacky you and yours are and what is your response...a cartoon...fantasy...responding with something that is not real....you see actual observed empirical evidence that the climate change you so fear is not happening and what do you do?....you respond with a cartoon...a fantasy....failing computer model output. Pathetic hairball....f'ing pathetic.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Just read through an article by Bob Tisdale and he shows why NOAA and their "pause busting paper" the fraud called Karl Et Al is deception at its finest.. They manipulated the axis and doubled the rate of warming in the night time temprature readings that they used to justify the adjustments. soak that in for a moment.. THEY DOUBLED THE RATE OF WARMING...while adjusting the x axis at 1998.

The base data shows what they did... The more information that comes out about how two top government scientists are faking data should send chills up your spine...

Source