The scandal of fiddled global warming data

[edthecynic]

Goddard's data is the fiddled data, just like Spencer's data was the fiddled data before him. All the fiddled data has come from the deniers!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's a climactic optimum? Why do they call it that?

 

[jc456]

Goddard's data is the fiddled data, just like Spencer's data was the fiddled data before him. All the fiddled data has come from the deniers!!!

You must be Einstein.

 

[skookerasbil]

Heres the poop.....either way, 70% of the country thinks the "consensus science" is bogus!!! They know the scientists are screwing with the data!!! Which is exactly why the "consensus science" has had zero impact in the real world ( Ive asked the k00ks many times to present a link showing it is.......2 years and still nada )!!

 

[skookerasbil]

jc, if you're not a cult parrot, tell us what TOBS is, and why it's important.

You can't, of course. You're just a cult parrot, following orders to whine at anyone who isn't as stupid and brainwashed as you are.

That is, you're a perfect denier, a proud UsefulIdiot for your masters.

Geez.....s0n.....just how many times did you get smacked upside of the head during gradeschool recess? Spit on without reprisal? Thats how guys like you become social oddballs and embrace all this feminine persona. Fuck.....the silly-ass cat was a dead giveaway The DOD hiring you too......have to appear to be balancing the playing field with token levels of ghey!! Guys like you are the nightmare of every real soldier when you come crawling in some fox hole..........might as well stick the white flag up immediately.

 

[mamooth]

So many denier cult parrots. None of them has a clue as to where Goddard's bumbling lies, which is why it's so amusing to watch them all shouting "AMEN!". They simply BELIEVE Goddard must be right, and that if they just hold true to their faith, reality will bend to their will and all the unbelievers will be cast into hell.

 

[jc456]

So many denier cult parrots. None of them has a clue as to where Goddard's bumbling lies, which is why it's so amusing to watch them all shouting "AMEN!". They simply BELIEVE Goddard must be right, and that if they just hold true to their faith, reality will bend to their will and all the unbelievers will be cast into hell.

Nope, I have reality on my side.

 

[mamooth]

We can scream at each other, and will, but at the end of the day, the whole planet says you're the crank.

So, it sucks to be you. If you want to change you status from the "joke" category, you'll need to do more than scream.

 

[skookerasbil]

We can scream at each other, and will, but at the end of the day, the whole planet says you're the crank.

So, it sucks to be you. If you want to change you status from the "joke" category, you'll need to do more than scream.

Like JC says.....there are such things as objective truths in this life. Frequently, the ymanage to ellude you!!

Maybe it does suck to be me but at least I fall squarely in the majority......never much cared for those who got all full of themselves by grabbing hold of some cause just to be able to matter somehow in the real world!!

 

[jc456]

We can scream at each other, and will, but at the end of the day, the whole planet says you're the crank.

So, it sucks to be you. If you want to change you status from the "joke" category, you'll need to do more than scream.

So if it sucks for me then it must really suck for you. Aren't we on the same planet?

The thing is you seem to have no logistical boundaries. You believe what people say simply because they say it and you don't obviously research to find supporting evidence to what someone says. You see, observation are what is important. I have the observed data on my side at the time you're telling everyone the sky is falling. See, if you look up, the sky is still there. And, until you provide some evidence that can support your claims, then you sir are wrong.

 

[Yarddog]

They stopped calling it Global Warming and started calling it Climate change. It was a political decision.
anybody know why they didi that?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No, we complain about all of the rural data collection stations being scrapped so that nothing is left but the urban stations which open the door to crazy adjustments.

Yeah. You complain about something that didn't even happen. That's the problem.

The CRN data network, the pristinely placed state of the art triple redundant network which needs no adjustment whatsoever doesn't show the sort of warming that the "adjusted" networks show. Explain.

The CRN only went up in 2008. Its obviously not going to show warming that happened prior to its existence. Does that really need to be explained?

While you are at it, you might explain globally why you think the places showing the most warming just happen to be the places with the most sparse data collection coverage. Very strange, don't you think?

That's funny, I thought global warming was a result of the urban heat island effect. What are the urban heat islands doing way out in the middle of nowhere?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Were you aware that Goddard's writing at WUWT were of such poor quality and so filled with errors that Anthony Watts gave him the boot?

And that changes the charts how?

What effect does that have on the fraud committed by NOAA?

There is no fraud you Brawndo drinking moron. The methods used to produce each plot are publically available, such that even total imbeciles like Steve Goddard can get them. The fact the plot tells you what you don't like to hear doesn't make it fraud. You are seriously the dumbest person ever to walk on Earth.

 

[daveman]

Goddard? That bumbling clown? Dang, the kooks just keep getting more desperate. Goddard being clueless about why TOBS adjustment is necessary to get accurate results doesn't make anyone else wrong. It just makes his groupies look ridiculous.

There is no vast socialist conspiracy. No, you deniers are not special little snowflakes with superior knowledge the rest of the world has missed. That's very apparent, being that most of you fail so badly at the science. Most of you are simply parroting stories about a topic you have zero understanding of.

Yes, we know why adjustment is necessary. Because the actual temps don't show any warming.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They know the scientists are screwing with the data!!!

They don't know that. They believe the scientists are "screwing with the data" because they are a bunch of bumbling idiots who will believe anything they see on FOX News or on Steve Goddard's blog. Knowing it would require actual jusfication. You don't prove fraud by holding up a plot and saying "See? The plot backs the conclusions of the people who made it. There must be fraud!" Unless you are speaking to total idiots like yourself.

 

[daveman]

Goddard's data is the fiddled data, just like Spencer's data was the fiddled data before him. All the fiddled data has come from the deniers!!!

Why do you even bother lying?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They stopped calling it Global Warming and started calling it Climate change. It was a political decision.
anybody know why they didi that?

What does George W Bush have to do with this?

 

[daveman]

We can scream at each other, and will, but at the end of the day, the whole planet says you're the crank.

So, it sucks to be you. If you want to change you status from the "joke" category, you'll need to do more than scream.

Why? That's all you do.

 

[edthecynic]

They stopped calling it Global Warming and started calling it Climate change. It was a political decision.
anybody know why they didi that?

Nobody stopped calling Global Warming, Global Warming, you have been had by GOP hate radio. Climate change is simply a symptom of Global Warming.

 

[daveman]

No, we complain about all of the rural data collection stations being scrapped so that nothing is left but the urban stations which open the door to crazy adjustments.

Yeah. You complain about something that didn't even happen. That's the problem.

The CRN data network, the pristinely placed state of the art triple redundant network which needs no adjustment whatsoever doesn't show the sort of warming that the "adjusted" networks show. Explain.

The CRN only went up in 2008. Its obviously not going to show warming that happened prior to its existence. Does that really need to be explained?

While you are at it, you might explain globally why you think the places showing the most warming just happen to be the places with the most sparse data collection coverage. Very strange, don't you think?

That's funny, I thought global warming was a result of the urban heat island effect. What are the urban heat islands doing way out in the middle of nowhere?

Didn't happen? But it did, of course.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/12/russians-accuse-cru-of-cherry-picking-station-data.html

Many of us are aware of the cherry-picking of proxy series that goes on in the temperature reconstruction world. This cherry picking is both manual — a thousand plus proxy series exist but the same 20-30 that are known to create hockey sticks are selected over and over; and algorithmic — McIntyre and McKittrick demonstrated how Michael Mann’s algorithms preferentially put high weights on hockey-stick shaped series.

I think a lot of us has suspected something similar in the surface temperature measurement indexes like the Hadley CRUT3, the main metric relied on by the IPCC.

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.​

--

Maybe they were urban biases in the data that was excluded. No, just the opposite:

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.​

It's easy to win when you stack the deck, isn't it?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is climate "science".

REAL scientists want all the data they can get.

Climate "scientists" only want data that support their desired outcome.