scientists tamper with "global warming" data

[IanC]

is this the thread that is supposed to be about Karl15?

here is a blogpost (pre climategate) talking about adjustments to SSTs. you warmers need to avert your eyes because it is from McIntyre's Climate Audit.

Nature Discovers Another Climate Audit Finding Climate Audit

 

[Crick]

Why couldn't we see the Nature material?

From a CA link in the CA article: " The big change in the 1995 Folland work is the conjecture that there was a changeover from wooden buckets to canvas buckets in the late 19th century, which caused a gradual "cooling" of measurements. This enabled them to depress 19th century temperatures a further 0.3 degree C and obtain a more compelling degree of temperature increase."

Does that sound objective to you? It doesn't to me.

It's followed by "I don’t plan to wade through this material but someone should." Maybe someone like Karl.

 

[Crick]

In the next link within the link, we get a taste of McIntyre's ego: "It’s always worth checking whether there’s a hidden agenda for seemingly innocent adjustments. Sometimes my instincts are pretty good." Now THERE is a true scientist, right Ian?

This article, which discussed a discontinuity between proxy and instrument records, concludes with "The nuance is important: I’m not arguing the adjustments per se (at least for now), but whether the tuning process needs to be considered in defining statistical significance benchmarks.". Yet this article (and the previous one where he suggested someone look at this stuff) is presented as the findings of someone who has looked into the justifications of adjustments made to 19th century SST measurements and found them wanting. Yet the truth is, he's done NOTHING. He points out factors in language I'm sure few of his readers understand and spouts suspicions that he manufactured out of whole cloth and paranoia.

What a guy!

 

[eagle1462010]

Why couldn't we see the Nature material?

From a CA link in the CA article: " The big change in the 1995 Folland work is the conjecture that there was a changeover from wooden buckets to canvas buckets in the late 19th century, which caused a gradual "cooling" of measurements. This enabled them to depress 19th century temperatures a further 0.3 degree C and obtain a more compelling degree of temperature increase."

Does that sound objective to you? It doesn't to me.

It's followed by "I don’t plan to wade through this material but someone should." Maybe someone like Karl.

 

[Crick]

Third link within the link. "I’ll discuss this more when I have time, but was struck by the graphic sufficiently to want to post it up immediately. I’m sure that some of you can figure out where this is going." Just as I'm sure that all of you can see what Mr McIntyre is going - though you may not want to admit it.

 

[Crick]

Dear Eagle,

the topic of THIS thread is whether or not scientists have been "tampering with global warming data". Your video, though danged clever, has not a fucking thing to do with the thread topic. Do you know how to start your own thread? When you first get to the Environment forum, you'll find (if you look) a button in the upper right that will allow you to begin a new thread. It is there that you can place new and novel material that doesn't fit into any of the current threads. Like this crap.

 

[eagle1462010]

Dear Eagle,

the topic of THIS thread is whether or not scientists have been "tampering with global warming data". Your video, though danged clever, has not a fucking thing to do with the thread topic. Do you know how to start your own thread? When you first get to the Environment forum, you'll find (if you look) a button in the upper right that will allow you to begin a new thread. It is there that you can place new and novel material that doesn't fit into any of the current threads. Like this crap.

I beg to differ........You brought it up.............

"Why couldn't we see natural data".........

Did you see the natural data I posted showing increased growth with increased levels of CO2.............

Growing plants is NATURAL DATA................Have a nice day.

 

[Crick]

Dear Eagle,

the topic of THIS thread is whether or not scientists have been "tampering with global warming data". Your video, though danged clever, has not a fucking thing to do with the thread topic. Do you know how to start your own thread? When you first get to the Environment forum, you'll find (if you look) a button in the upper right that will allow you to begin a new thread. It is there that you can place new and novel material that doesn't fit into any of the current threads. Like this crap.

I beg to differ........You brought it up.............

"Why couldn't we see natural data".........

Did you see the natural data I posted showing increased growth with increased levels of CO2.............

Growing plants is NATURAL DATA................Have a nice day.

So now besides posting off-topic material, you've chosen to intentionally misquote me.

Your batting 1.000 young fool.

 

[eagle1462010]

Why couldn't we see the Nature material?

From a CA link in the CA article: " The big change in the 1995 Folland work is the conjecture that there was a changeover from wooden buckets to canvas buckets in the late 19th century, which caused a gradual "cooling" of measurements. This enabled them to depress 19th century temperatures a further 0.3 degree C and obtain a more compelling degree of temperature increase."

Does that sound objective to you? It doesn't to me.

It's followed by "I don’t plan to wade through this material but someone should." Maybe someone like Karl.

How did I misquote your quote...............

 

[Crick]

I beg to differ........You brought it up.............

"Why couldn't we see natural data".........

Did you see the natural data I posted showing increased growth with increased levels of CO2.............

Growing plants is NATURAL DATA................Have a nice day.

Like this you stupid dipshit

 

[eagle1462010]

I beg to differ........You brought it up.............

"Why couldn't we see natural data".........

Did you see the natural data I posted showing increased growth with increased levels of CO2.............

Growing plants is NATURAL DATA................Have a nice day.

Like this you stupid dipshit

NATURE VERSUS NATURAL ..............SO call the spelling police..........I didn't cut and past...............

 

[Crick]

If you're incapable of discussing the thread topic, why not move somewhere you can?