Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

Nope, it actually confirms that the warming trend is increasing. The poorly sited stations the deniers reported were near heat sources, and not being real scientists the deniers thought being near heat sources would increase the warming trend because thec raw temps would be higher. But since real scientists use anomalies, higher raw temperatures actually make the anomalies lower. So when the deniers got their way and the poorly sited stations near heat sources were removed, the artificially lower anomalies were thus removed, much to the chagrin of the deniers, and when the more accurate data went against the denier's expectations they cried foul, like fools.

and you call us liars!

here is a graphic from Watt's paper -

watts_et_al_2012-figure20-conus-compliant-nonc-noaa.png


compliant staions are comparable to satellite data. non-compliant stations are much warmer. and NOAA is much higher than either one!!!!!
Again you fail or pretend not to understand the difference between raw temperature and anomalies.
 
Nope, it actually confirms that the warming trend is increasing. The poorly sited stations the deniers reported were near heat sources, and not being real scientists the deniers thought being near heat sources would increase the warming trend because thec raw temps would be higher. But since real scientists use anomalies, higher raw temperatures actually make the anomalies lower. So when the deniers got their way and the poorly sited stations near heat sources were removed, the artificially lower anomalies were thus removed, much to the chagrin of the deniers, and when the more accurate data went against the denier's expectations they cried foul, like fools.

and you call us liars!

here is a graphic from Watt's paper -

watts_et_al_2012-figure20-conus-compliant-nonc-noaa.png


compliant staions are comparable to satellite data. non-compliant stations are much warmer. and NOAA is much higher than either one!!!!!
Again you fail or pretend not to understand the difference between raw temperature and anomalies.



s0n........nobody is caring about temperatures :funnyface::fu::funnyface: >>>


From the Obama EIA yesterday..................

IEA Coal Will Continue to Dominate World Electricity RealClearEnergy


lOsInG
 
Nope, it actually confirms that the warming trend is increasing. The poorly sited stations the deniers reported were near heat sources, and not being real scientists the deniers thought being near heat sources would increase the warming trend because thec raw temps would be higher. But since real scientists use anomalies, higher raw temperatures actually make the anomalies lower. So when the deniers got their way and the poorly sited stations near heat sources were removed, the artificially lower anomalies were thus removed, much to the chagrin of the deniers, and when the more accurate data went against the denier's expectations they cried foul, like fools.

and you call us liars!

here is a graphic from Watt's paper -

watts_et_al_2012-figure20-conus-compliant-nonc-noaa.png


compliant staions are comparable to satellite data. non-compliant stations are much warmer. and NOAA is much higher than either one!!!!!
Again you fail or pretend not to understand the difference between raw temperature and anomalies.

How to teach a moron...

1. Show them that increased temperature in habitated areas increases the global average.
2, The increase of the average increases the anomalies. (most temperature recoding station are in habiated areas giving a false rise to the global temperatures)
3. The misrepresentation of actual temperature creates a fictional crisis.. Called AGW...

As morons are unteachable they will ignore reality.
 
How to teach a moron...

1. Show them that increased temperature in habitated areas increases the global average.
2, The increase of the average increases the anomalies. (most temperature recoding station are in habiated areas giving a false rise to the global temperatures)
3. The misrepresentation of actual temperature creates a fictional crisis.. Called AGW...

As morons are unteachable they will ignore reality.
You mean how to BE an ass backwards moron!

Anomalies are measured against an average, therefore anything that artificially raises the average LOWERS the anomalies!!!!!
 
How to teach a moron...

1. Show them that increased temperature in habitated areas increases the global average.
2, The increase of the average increases the anomalies. (most temperature recoding station are in habiated areas giving a false rise to the global temperatures)
3. The misrepresentation of actual temperature creates a fictional crisis.. Called AGW...

As morons are unteachable they will ignore reality.
You mean how to BE an ass backwards moron!

Anomalies are measured against an average, therefore anything that artificially raises the average LOWERS the anomalies!!!!!



uNteAchaBle s0n!!!:2up:

And better................lOsInG!!!:spinner:
 
How to teach a moron...

1. Show them that increased temperature in habitated areas increases the global average.
2, The increase of the average increases the anomalies. (most temperature recoding station are in habiated areas giving a false rise to the global temperatures)
3. The misrepresentation of actual temperature creates a fictional crisis.. Called AGW...

As morons are unteachable they will ignore reality.
You mean how to BE an ass backwards moron!

Anomalies are measured against an average, therefore anything that artificially raises the average LOWERS the anomalies!!!!!

Latest homogenization and rewriting of the temperature records did two things. It lowered temps prior to 1960 and raised temperatures after 1990. This created a false high in Anomaly compared to the new, better, temperature average range they constructed by falsification of the temperature record..

Epic Fail AGAIN...
 
Billy and skook, have you thought about turning state's evidence against the denier cult leaders? Testify about the fraud that you helped out with, and you'd only be facing probation.

I think you'd be crazy not to take such a deal. Even you have to see how the walls are closing in on your cult. Cult membership is down to the last few diehards. If you don't squeal, someone else will beat you to it, and you'll be the one doing hard time.
 
Billy and skook, have you thought about turning state's evidence against the denier cult leaders? Testify about the fraud that you helped out with, and you'd only be facing probation.

I think you'd be crazy not to take such a deal. Even you have to see how the walls are closing in on your cult. Cult membership is down to the last few diehards. If you don't squeal, someone else will beat you to it, and you'll be the one doing hard time.
You're delusional. If the walls are closing in on anyone, it's the priesthood of the AGW cult.
 
Anomalies are not some complicated stat that no one without a PhD can understand. They are simply a measure of variance from the mean or a reference value of part of the series. This allows comparisons to other similar series.

Watt's graph was presented as trends, which cannot be calculated without putting the data into anomalies. The main complaint against Watt's paper was the lack of specific adjustments for TOBS and equipment change. The good part of that was the co.mparisons showed that the stated adjustments in NOAA did not match up with the actual data.
 
Billy and skook, have you thought about turning state's evidence against the denier cult leaders? Testify about the fraud that you helped out with, and you'd only be facing probation.

I think you'd be crazy not to take such a deal. Even you have to see how the walls are closing in on your cult. Cult membership is down to the last few diehards. If you don't squeal, someone else will beat you to it, and you'll be the one doing hard time.
talk about desperation. Ouch dude'/dudette,
 

Forum List

Back
Top