HADCRU Data Manipulation Extraordinaire

Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Sep 24, 2010.

  1. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,016
    Thanks Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,786
    olfraud just loves to point out how satellite data and ground weather stations correlate nicely to show an increasing warm trend. Of course when he is presented with evidence that shows the satellites are faultily reading 15 degrees higher and the weather stations in the rural areas are no longer being used in favour of urban island affected city and airport based weather stations, he quite blissfully ignores that and launches blizzards of ad hom attacks.

    Here is another opportunity for him to launch another blizzard; and konrad feel free to jump in as well. The link below presents some pretty interesting evidence of how Jones and Co. have completely rewritten history to promulgate their "consensus" view of science.

    It makes it very clear who is manipulating the data (that would be called lying by olfraud and his crew) and who is not. It is a blog (surprise) but the information is taken from the sources and that should be good enough for almost anyone. Chris, olfraud and their ilk will never change their minds but here is some evidence for those who wish to actually learn something.

    THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Deja Vu '72?


    I just noticed the thread header is HADGRU, it should have read HADCRU sorry for the typo!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2010
  2. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,563
    Thanks Received:
    5,425
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,374
    LOL. What a peice of garbage. Only tracks the last few years. And certainly fails to show that this year is tracking to equal 1998. What does that do to that peice of shit graph? And if you move the starting line back to thirty years ago, the lines would be sharply upward.

    Come on, Walleyes, we ask you for scientific papers supporting your position, and you give us lying blogs.
     
  3. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    30 years compared to how many billions of years?
     
  4. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,016
    Thanks Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,786



    The point is they are manipulating raw data to support their contention that man is causing a temperature rise. I agree with you 30 years is nothing. A 30 year temperature trend in the scheme of things means nothing. That's why geologists for the most part don't agree with any of the AGW theories being presented. We deal with the long term and 1000 years may be significant in mans terms, but not in the planets.
     
  5. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,674
    The billions of years are irrelevant. What's important are the last 200 and how GHGs have risen over historical averages. We evolved in this particular climate. Looking back to what it was like billions or millions of years ago, doesn't have anything to do with today's situation.
     
  6. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,674
    But it's man's terms we're interested in. What are you even saying??? Man doesn't have anything to do with climate or we do but there's nothing we can do about it. You seem to want to have it both ways. You can't look at the distant past and take it as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like an unnatural rise in CO2 and other GHGs.
     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,016
    Thanks Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,786




    So riddle me this batman. If, as we know, CO2 levels rise 800 years after a warming trend has begun why do you think the last 200 years are relevant?
     
  8. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,016
    Thanks Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,786



    No, unlike yourself who has decided that man is the only cause of the percieved temperature increse, I actually do want to know what the planet is doing. But I want the real information not the humped up bullshyte the alarmists are stuffing down our throats.
    A scientist must look at all data sets and, without emotion cluttering up the mental landscape, decipher to the best of their ability what is happening.

    Alarmists on the other hand ONLY pander to emotion. That is not science that is religion. That is why you folks are losing the argument.

    You claim that there is an unnatural rise in CO2. Prove that it is unnatural. I can point to many times in the past where the CO2 levels have been significantly higher independent of mans existence. I can also point to times when the CO2 levels were lower and yet there was a much higher global temperature, and this in the recent past as recently as 800 years ago.

    In fact, based on the empirical data that we have, my hypothesis that the current increase in CO2 is a result of the Medieval Warming Period (and that pesky 800 year lag from the onset of warming to the rising levels of CO2 that has been confirmed by the Vostock ice cores) is more reasonable than the alarmists "theory" that man is the proximal cause of the CO2 increase.

    We can show only a small increase in the CO2 level that is directly attributable to man. Over 95% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is provably natural. Therefore I will continue to research my hypothesis that the CO2 increase is a natural result of the MWP.

    There is more evidence to support my hypothesis than your "theory" at the current time.
     

Share This Page