Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nobody stopped calling Global Warming, Global Warming, you have been had by GOP hate radio. Climate change is simply a symptom of Global Warming.They stopped calling it Global Warming and started calling it Climate change. It was a political decision.
anybody know why they didi that?
Didn't happen? But it did, of course.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 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?
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.
Sorry, McIntyre and McKittrick 2003 = debunked. Not long after publication in fact.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
See page 2312, paragraph beginning with "It should be noted that..."
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.
Suspect what similar? You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about - you can't suspect anything! Who is us? Your idiot friends who read denialist blogs and watch FOX News?
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.
Who the fuck gives a shit? They do ECONOMIC analysis you fucking moron. Do I need to explain to you the difference between the different sciences? Economics and climate science aren't even in the same ballpark. For crissakes where were you when they were handing out the brains?
I find it hilarious that you blindly believe M&M 2003 - who basically gutted all the data before 1600 to get the result they wanted - but then when a bunch of economicsts tell you too much data is thrown out - well then you go with that. Of course anyone who thinks the opinion of economists on anything having to do with climate science is relevant at all is lucky to even be alive at this point.
Say, here's a crazy idea!Nobody stopped calling Global Warming, Global Warming, you have been had by GOP hate radio. Climate change is simply a symptom of Global Warming.They stopped calling it Global Warming and started calling it Climate change. It was a political decision.
anybody know why they didi that?
The George Bush administration made the decision to start using the term "climate change" instead of "global warming" because the term "climate change" sounded less scary. Its ironic then that the same muttonheads that put Bush in office came back a few years later claiming the term was due to some liberal conspiracy.
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 Manns algorithms preferentially put high weights on hockey-stick shaped series.
Sorry, McIntyre and McKittrick 2003 = debunked. Not long after publication in fact.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
See page 2312, paragraph beginning with "It should be noted that..."
Suspect what similar? You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about - you can't suspect anything! Who is us? Your idiot friends who read denialist blogs and watch FOX News?
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.
Who the fuck gives a shit? They do ECONOMIC analysis you fucking moron. Do I need to explain to you the difference between the different sciences? Economics and climate science aren't even in the same ballpark. For crissakes where were you when they were handing out the brains?
I find it hilarious that you blindly believe M&M 2003 - who basically gutted all the data before 1600 to get the result they wanted - but then when a bunch of economicsts tell you too much data is thrown out - well then you go with that. Of course anyone who thinks the opinion of economists on anything having to do with climate science is relevant at all is lucky to even be alive at this point.
Ooooh, you get all emotional when your dogma is questioned.
Tough shit, kid. The cult is fiddling the numbers. You may as well accept it.
But you won't, will you? You're too heavily emotionally invested in it.
kSay, here's a crazy idea!Nobody stopped calling Global Warming, Global Warming, you have been had by GOP hate radio. Climate change is simply a symptom of Global Warming.
The George Bush administration made the decision to start using the term "climate change" instead of "global warming" because the term "climate change" sounded less scary. Its ironic then that the same muttonheads that put Bush in office came back a few years later claiming the term was due to some liberal conspiracy.
Post a link backing up your claims sometime.
The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".
Ooooh, you get all emotional when your dogma is questioned.Sorry, McIntyre and McKittrick 2003 = debunked. Not long after publication in fact.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
See page 2312, paragraph beginning with "It should be noted that..."
Suspect what similar? You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about - you can't suspect anything! Who is us? Your idiot friends who read denialist blogs and watch FOX News?
Who the fuck gives a shit? They do ECONOMIC analysis you fucking moron. Do I need to explain to you the difference between the different sciences? Economics and climate science aren't even in the same ballpark. For crissakes where were you when they were handing out the brains?
I find it hilarious that you blindly believe M&M 2003 - who basically gutted all the data before 1600 to get the result they wanted - but then when a bunch of economicsts tell you too much data is thrown out - well then you go with that. Of course anyone who thinks the opinion of economists on anything having to do with climate science is relevant at all is lucky to even be alive at this point.
Tough shit, kid. The cult is fiddling the numbers. You may as well accept it.
But you won't, will you? You're too heavily emotionally invested in it.
You haven't presented any convincing evidence that any numbers were "fiddled". Your entire argument is based on the fact the graph doesn't look how you want it to look. You don't even know what the adjustments are that are being applied. Why not? They are public - you can read them. Are you lazy? Yes. Are you stupid? Yes. So that's why.
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.
Steve Goddard - a guy who uses the term "moron alert" on his blog - is clearly very credible.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/
I found it telling the denialists bitch about urban warming and then bitch when the data is adjusted to account for urban warming.
Read #6 GHCN Global Gridded Data
In fact - read the whole page - within 10 minutes you'll already know 10x as much as Steve Goddard knows.
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 Manns algorithms preferentially put high weights on hockey-stick shaped series.
Sorry, McIntyre and McKittrick 2003 = debunked. Not long after publication in fact.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
See page 2312, paragraph beginning with "It should be noted that..."
Suspect what similar? You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about - you can't suspect anything! Who is us? Your idiot friends who read denialist blogs and watch FOX News?
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.
Who the fuck gives a shit? They do ECONOMIC analysis you fucking moron. Do I need to explain to you the difference between the different sciences? Economics and climate science aren't even in the same ballpark. For crissakes where were you when they were handing out the brains?
I find it hilarious that you blindly believe M&M 2003 - who basically gutted all the data before 1600 to get the result they wanted - but then when a bunch of economicsts tell you too much data is thrown out - well then you go with that. Of course anyone who thinks the opinion of economists on anything having to do with climate science is relevant at all is lucky to even be alive at this point.
why are you throwing out a red herring about paleoreconstructions when we are talking about measured global datasets?
as with so many national sites that collect their data and send it along to the main agencies, the Russians found that what was being said about their country did not match their own calculations. Iceland is certainly another example. there are likely more example of countries who's records before adjustments, corrections and homogenizations are significantly different even though the host country has already made the required adjustments.
a recent example was a city of 200,000 in Siberia with an aluminium smelter that was designated 'rural' and used to homogenize other stations within a 1000K radius. why was it designated rural? the original station gps coordinates were now under water because of a dam, and of course there were no 'night lights'.
An economic dataset.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous hockey stick graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
UHI adjustments have a net positive effect on the trend.
Russians found that what was being said about their country did not match their own calculations.
Russians found that what was being said about their country did not match their own calculations.
Russian economists, right?
LOL!
Russians found that what was being said about their country did not match their own calculations.
Russian economists, right?
LOL!
Whats up s0n? Getting bored of your race baiting stunts over in "Current Events"?
Globull warming, climate change takes another bad hit now that weather extremes are understood.
Mystery of Why Some Countries Repeatedly Suffer Floods, Freezes and Heatwaves Finally Explained
Why are liberals anti science?
