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.
I would stand to gain from robbing a bank. May we the assume me guilty of the last bank robbery in my area? This is all just more of your grand conspiracy among the unusually corrupt field of climate science. IOW, it's your ignorant, unevidenced, anti-science bullshit.
Scientists shown to be willfully lying about their results lose their jobs and will never get hired again. Many HAVE gone to jail. When you say "nu such risk", you are either lying or exposing your ignorance. The careers, which they worked much harder to create than you or I, will be over.
When you suggest that 97% of climate scientists indulge in such behavior, it is YOUR willful dishonesty that's exposed.
Threads like this should be in the conspiracy folder, along with the moon landing hoaxers, birthers, flat earthers, antivaxxers and 9/11 truthers.
Global warming denialism is literally nothing but a conspiracy cult now. It's time to stop being politically correct, and to treat it as a conspiracy cult.
Why? You afraid that the facts will get out so you wish to censor everything that doesn't comport to your fraud?
Threads like this should be in the conspiracy folder, along with the moon landing hoaxers, birthers, flat earthers, antivaxxers and 9/11 truthers.
Global warming denialism is literally nothing but a conspiracy cult now. It's time to stop being politically correct, and to treat it as a conspiracy cult.
Why? You afraid that the facts will get out so you wish to censor everything that doesn't comport to your fraud?
bank robbing? what the hell does that have to do with climate? trolling I see.I would stand to gain from robbing a bank. May we the assume me guilty of the last bank robbery in my area? This is all just more of your grand conspiracy among the unusually corrupt field of climate science. IOW, it's your ignorant, unevidenced, anti-science bullshit.
Try to keep up with the conversation. Paddie (BriPat) seems to think that because he believes scientists would benefit financially from claiming AGW were taking place, that they must all be lying about it; they must be making it all up. All of them. In unison. It's the grand conspiracy strategy. I would benefit from robbing a bank. Therefore, by Paddies logic, I must be guilty of bank robberies in my area.
Got it?
Funny how you never object to adjustments made in YOUR preferred direction. Your buddies Spencer and Christy, who were fudging their results in the 90s, have just made yet another major adjustment to the data, V6.0, which lowers the warming trend some more. They still have not turned it into cooling like they did when they used the opposite sign to adjust for diurnal satellite drift, but they did reduce it with each adjustment since they were originally forced to correct their data.adjustments are made seemingly for no other reason than to push the results in a prefered direction.
climate science was on a slippery slope when they started to 'fudge' results in the 90's. without the skeptics's criticisms all the bogus results would still be in place to this day.
Funny how you never object to adjustments made in YOUR preferred direction. Your buddies Spencer and Christy, who were fudging their results in the 90s, have just made yet another major adjustment to the data, V6.0, which lowers the warming trend some more. They still have not turned it into cooling like they did when they used the opposite sign to adjust for diurnal satellite drift, but they did reduce it with each adjustment since they were originally forced to correct their data.adjustments are made seemingly for no other reason than to push the results in a prefered direction.
climate science was on a slippery slope when they started to 'fudge' results in the 90's. without the skeptics's criticisms all the bogus results would still be in place to this day.
Why have you and WUWT, etc., not bitched about all their "adjustments" and posted blink diagrams of their cooling changes, hypocrite?
So it is not the fact the that data is adjusted that bothers you deniers, it is only the direction of the adjustments!Funny how you never object to adjustments made in YOUR preferred direction. Your buddies Spencer and Christy, who were fudging their results in the 90s, have just made yet another major adjustment to the data, V6.0, which lowers the warming trend some more. They still have not turned it into cooling like they did when they used the opposite sign to adjust for diurnal satellite drift, but they did reduce it with each adjustment since they were originally forced to correct their data.adjustments are made seemingly for no other reason than to push the results in a prefered direction.
climate science was on a slippery slope when they started to 'fudge' results in the 90's. without the skeptics's criticisms all the bogus results would still be in place to this day.
Why have you and WUWT, etc., not bitched about all their "adjustments" and posted blink diagrams of their cooling changes, hypocrite?
we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention. they continue to monitor it. unlike the altimetry results for sea level rise, etc. do you disagree with RSS too? I think it is a positive situation where two groups with different standing on the problem are both trying to check and improve the results. there should be more of that in climate science.
that's how you spin it, but UAH changed nothing. In fact they refused to even check their code for years when their data matched no one else's. Finally RSS got tired of deniers using UAH's fudged data to accuse RSS and NOAA of fudging the data and RSS checked the UAH code at RSS's own expense and valuable time, and then RSS published their results. UAH was FORCED to admit their error and use the RSS corrections.we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention.
So it is not the fact the that data is adjusted that bothers you deniers, it is only the direction of the adjustments!Funny how you never object to adjustments made in YOUR preferred direction. Your buddies Spencer and Christy, who were fudging their results in the 90s, have just made yet another major adjustment to the data, V6.0, which lowers the warming trend some more. They still have not turned it into cooling like they did when they used the opposite sign to adjust for diurnal satellite drift, but they did reduce it with each adjustment since they were originally forced to correct their data.adjustments are made seemingly for no other reason than to push the results in a prefered direction.
climate science was on a slippery slope when they started to 'fudge' results in the 90's. without the skeptics's criticisms all the bogus results would still be in place to this day.
Why have you and WUWT, etc., not bitched about all their "adjustments" and posted blink diagrams of their cooling changes, hypocrite?
we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention. they continue to monitor it. unlike the altimetry results for sea level rise, etc. do you disagree with RSS too? I think it is a positive situation where two groups with different standing on the problem are both trying to check and improve the results. there should be more of that in climate science.
Thank you.
that's how you spin it, but UAH changed nothing. In fact they refused to even check their code for years when their data matched no one else's. Finally RSS got tired of deniers using UAH's fudged data to accuse RSS and NOAA of fudging the data and RSS checked the UAH code at RSS's own expense and valuable time, and then RSS published their results. UAH was FORCED to admit their error and use the RSS corrections.we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention.
Except they publish explanations for every change, you just ignore them so you can lie about them.So it is not the fact the that data is adjusted that bothers you deniers, it is only the direction of the adjustments!Funny how you never object to adjustments made in YOUR preferred direction. Your buddies Spencer and Christy, who were fudging their results in the 90s, have just made yet another major adjustment to the data, V6.0, which lowers the warming trend some more. They still have not turned it into cooling like they did when they used the opposite sign to adjust for diurnal satellite drift, but they did reduce it with each adjustment since they were originally forced to correct their data.adjustments are made seemingly for no other reason than to push the results in a prefered direction.
climate science was on a slippery slope when they started to 'fudge' results in the 90's. without the skeptics's criticisms all the bogus results would still be in place to this day.
Why have you and WUWT, etc., not bitched about all their "adjustments" and posted blink diagrams of their cooling changes, hypocrite?
we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention. they continue to monitor it. unlike the altimetry results for sea level rise, etc. do you disagree with RSS too? I think it is a positive situation where two groups with different standing on the problem are both trying to check and improve the results. there should be more of that in climate science.
Thank you.
UAH is making adjustments to improve their product in a reasonably transparent way. I have no problem if you want to criticize how they are doing it.
I personally have a problem with surface station adjustments because it appears that they are changing measured values to meet expectaions of what they think global temperature should be, in a hidden way with no specific explanations for individual cases. that might be OK if people realized that global temp is a fabricated result but most people think it is a combination of real measurements with some adjustments rather than just adjustments to meet expectations.
Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere
So where does that leave us? An "Executive Summary" by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, co-authored by John Christy of UAH concludes:
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.
This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."
In other words, according to UAH, satellite measurements match the models apart from in the tropics. This error is most likely due to data errors. According to RSS, satellites are in good agreement with models.
Well, whatever the underlying cause, the mistake was on the part of the UAH team, and when corrected, their data showed what everybody else's data did.
Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere
So where does that leave us? An "Executive Summary" by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, co-authored by John Christy of UAH concludes:
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.
This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."
In other words, according to UAH, satellite measurements match the models apart from in the tropics. This error is most likely due to data errors. According to RSS, satellites are in good agreement with models.
Well, whatever the underlying cause, the mistake was on the part of the UAH team, and when corrected, their data showed what everybody else's data did.
".....errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected"
WTF?
Bernie Madoff's account says, "Errors in the audits showing how your money was used have been identified and corrected"
No, denier revisionist history tells a different story.that's how you spin it, but UAH changed nothing. In fact they refused to even check their code for years when their data matched no one else's. Finally RSS got tired of deniers using UAH's fudged data to accuse RSS and NOAA of fudging the data and RSS checked the UAH code at RSS's own expense and valuable time, and then RSS published their results. UAH was FORCED to admit their error and use the RSS corrections.we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention.
you can believe what you want.history tells a different story.
No, denier revisionist history tells a different story.that's how you spin it, but UAH changed nothing. In fact they refused to even check their code for years when their data matched no one else's. Finally RSS got tired of deniers using UAH's fudged data to accuse RSS and NOAA of fudging the data and RSS checked the UAH code at RSS's own expense and valuable time, and then RSS published their results. UAH was FORCED to admit their error and use the RSS corrections.we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention.
you can believe what you want.history tells a different story.
Here is the abstract of the paper were outside scientists Mears and Wentz of RSS made the corrections UAH refused to make for more than a decade.No, denier revisionist history tells a different story.that's how you spin it, but UAH changed nothing. In fact they refused to even check their code for years when their data matched no one else's. Finally RSS got tired of deniers using UAH's fudged data to accuse RSS and NOAA of fudging the data and RSS checked the UAH code at RSS's own expense and valuable time, and then RSS published their results. UAH was FORCED to admit their error and use the RSS corrections.we have been through all of this before. UAH changed its code when deficiencies in handling diurnal drift were brought to their attention.
you can believe what you want.history tells a different story.
I certainly realize I amnot going to convince you. I just advise people to look for themselves before accepting your version of events
