saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,756
- 10,843
- 2,030
Manipulating data sets to fit your hypothesis does not make you a scientist. Then predicting events that don't occur or have to be revised to fit the model hardly science either.
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.
It's not character assassination. It's qualification. Why should we take the word of a dropout who makes AGW skeptic graphs for a hobby over the word of virtually every, degreed, professional researcher on the planet? The answer is: we shouldn't.
Care to explain where Mr Lansner got a 0.6C rise between 1900 and 2010? Do YOU have data that shows such a number?
did you bother reading the article?
he specifically answers your question, and others....
2) I have used 0,7K for the temperature increase 1900-2010. This is obviously highly questionable due to significant UHI measuring problems and adjustment issue that is likely to have exaggerated the temperature increase 1900-2010. On the other hand, temperature variations at Vostok are likely to be larger than global temperature changes, so perhaps a qualitative compare is somewhat fair after all. At least, if you claim that the present temperature increase is extraordinarily large, I think one should show data that supports it. And, as I showed, Vostok data does not really support the claim.
So he thinks 0.7C is a high estimate. Do you agree with him?
Which, without evidence, you have assumed were fraudulent. And, since not a single voice in the community of experts has raised the slightest complaint at those adjustments, your presumption has branded them all conspirators.
Is that where you WANT to be Ian?
Which, without evidence, you have assumed were fraudulent. And, since not a single voice in the community of experts has raised the slightest complaint at those adjustments, your presumption has branded them all conspirators.
Is that where you WANT to be Ian?
I said dubious, and now you are claiming I said fraudulent and that I called them all co-conspirators. I thought I asked you not to do that?
there are as many ways to adjust temperature records as there are people to write the code. the mindset of those in charge of taking care of the temp datasets is to show warming.
eg Hansen, Schmidt, Jones, etc. every time an adjustment is constructed that adds to the temp trend, it is soon followed by every other dataset.
BEST introduced kridging, where homogenization is done by 'detecting' break points and making wholesale changes by shifting whole portions of the curve. these changes should be audited to find a legitimate reason for them but typically the computer just does it with no authorization from reality
the detection is done by predicting what the temp should be, and the assumption is that temps should go up. a step change of say 0.3C would pass undetected if it was warmer but be flagged if it was lower. after that 'break point' repair the expected trend is even higher, leading to more false high readings to go through and detecting even more true low readings to be flagged.
is it fraud to put a kridging system into place without proper safeguards? maybe, maybe not. the first person who does it may have thought it was a great advancement in climate science and didnt look hard enough, or for long enough to find out the true effect of the method. the second group says I like that and the first group has already tested it so I dont have to. the third group says everybody else is doing it so I should too.
there have been many, many mistakes and inconsistencies pointed out in the last 15 years. they seldom get explained and often are left in place.
the fiasco in Texas last summer is 'still being looked into'.
and you wonder why I am dubious about changes to their methodology that seems to exclusively increase the trend?
Ian has had four days to refute those comments but did not. Are you speaking for him now?
God are you stupid. And dishonest.
I admit I'm wrong when I am. I apologize when it is called for. You do neither.
So where is the apology for misrepresenting the posts by your opposition?I admit I'm wrong when I am. I apologize when it is called for. You do neither.
Still no answer!!!!So... you think the data from the Vostok cores is an accurate measure of the behavior of the climate of the entire Earth.
You really are that stupid.
It seems that you are that stupid. Those ice cores reflect the global climate over a very long period of time and the isotopes they have found clearly place our current warming trend statistically dead center. You like to character assassinate and NEVER go find any facts from other ice cores to refute what has been posted.So... you think the data from the Vostok cores is an accurate measure of the behavior of the climate of the entire Earth.
You really are that stupid.
So you really want to tell us that an ice core from Vostok gives an accurate record of the Earth's temperature?
God are you stupid.