- Dec 18, 2013
- 137,037
- 28,138
- 2,180
hey that's simple, give us the raw data sets and let's see what they're actually doing. Why are they afraid to simply show the raw data? What is it they think is necessary on past records, of which they have no clue on?Now why don't you just wear a big sign saying "I am stupid". What you are doing is denying huge amounts of research and measurements done by scientists of all nations all over the world. And doing so without any research on your part into their methods or findings. You are a willfully ignorant ass, and proving it every day.Interesting isn't it that the raw ground measurement data agrees with the satellites but the heavily massaged data doesn't....and you call that data correct.
The satellite data is twiddled, fudged, massaged and twisted far more than the surface data. Only the most desperate cultists still pretend otherwise.
Normal people, if they wanted to see surface temperatures, they'd use the directly measured surface temperatures. Deniers, they go with satellites that don't even measure surface temperatures, and which don't measure temperature directly at all. It's a favorite tactic of pseudoscience cranks to throw out good clear data in favor of the bad fuzzy data, and that's the only tactic deniers have left now.
And given that the temperature adjustments to the raw data make the current warming look _smaller_, it's particularly dishonest of the deniers to put forth a conspiracy theory that states the exact opposite of reality. Yet nearly every single one of them still proudly tells that blatant lie. The cult has commanded them to lie, so they do it, period.
Flipping a coin would be more accurate then the data we have on ocean temperatures.
Changing data, so you are admitting biased data is used for the temperature reports. Thanks for finally admitting that the data is falsified.