Very interesting pattern

[Billy_Bob]

They have been made more accurate. If you disagree, show us some professional climate science researchers who agree with you.

I deal in verifiable data not the homogenized and manipulated crap you use."made more accurate" So you claim to know the accuracy of every device and what its 'correct' temperature it should show? You must be clairvoyant...

You're an easily duped fool.. Just because you don't agree, you think your the one who is right and the authority on all things... Please show proof of your superior measurement with empirical measurements... Oh that's right... You know better and change them.

Go back to your crystal ball and bones...

 

[SSDD]

They have been made more accurate. If you disagree, show us some professional climate science researchers who agree with you.

Really? Got a rational, scientifically valid explanation for how adjusting data from 50, 70,100 years ago and more makes them more accurate? Any at all that doesn't stink of pure bullshit?

 

[Crick]

Please provide statements from some professional climate science researchers who agree with you.

 

[SSDD]

Please provide statements from some professional climate science researchers who agree with you.

Really? Got a rational, scientifically valid explanation for how adjusting data from 50, 70,100 years ago and more makes them more accurate? Any at all that doesn't stink of pure bullshit?

Didn't think so...thanks for proving my point...

 

[Crick]

I ask again. Please provide statements from some professional climate science researchers who agree with you regarding adjustments that the various agencies have made to these records.

You have no problem assuming that because I only provide you links to evidence, no evidence exists. Yet here, you don't even provide the links. Obviously, professional climate scientists have a better idea than you or I as to whether or not such adjustments are valid or not; whether such adjustments improve the accuracy of the data or harm it. And if those adjustment were not valid and made the data less accurate, they would have complained; they would have made it known. You should have no problem finding such statements. Yet you produce NOTHING.

I can find you statements from both Judith Curry and Roy Spencer, surely your favorite climate scientists, stating that such adjustments are valid and that folks should not make the precise charges you are making because they simply are not true. You've seen both of them in your day. Yet you continue to make this claim. The only possible conclusion is that you do not care about the truth. This would be strong supporting evidence that you are, in fact, nothing but a

TROLL

 

[skookerasbil]

I ask again. Please provide statements from some professional climate science researchers who agree with you regarding adjustments that the various agencies have made to these records.

You have no problem assuming that because I only provide you links to evidence, no evidence exists. Yet here, you don't even provide the links. Obviously, professional climate scientists have a better idea than you or I as to whether or not such adjustments are valid or not; whether such adjustments improve the accuracy of the data or harm it. And if those adjustment were not valid and made the data less accurate, they would have complained; they would have made it known. You should have no problem finding such statements. Yet you produce NOTHING.

I can find you statements from both Judith Curry and Roy Spencer, surely your favorite climate scientists, stating that such adjustments are valid and that folks should not make the precise charges you are making because they simply are not true. You've seen both of them in your day. Yet you continue to make this claim. The only possible conclusion is that you do not care about the truth. This would be strong supporting evidence that you are, in fact, nothing but a

TROLL

You talk incessantly about "professional climate researchers" but who is embracing their research outside the science domain. The answer is....nobody.

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid.

Just incredibly fucking stupid.

Yes, O.R., that was an interesting pattern

 

[SSDD]

I ask again. Please provide statements from some professional climate science researchers who agree with you regarding adjustments that the various agencies have made to these records.

TROLL

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

 

[Crick]

Pathetic. I find ZERO discussion of the reasons for which NOAA, NASA and Hadley adjusted their datasets. Instead we find analyses that do nothing but say "it went down here and up there so they were obviously trying to make the warming look worse and these adjustments were invalid". That's bullshit. And, of course, this was NOT published in a refereed journal. Wordpress is nothing more than self-publishing.
*******************************************************************************
From: Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming | Dana Nuccitelli

Working backwards from a politically-motivated conclusion
The claim is based on what can charitably be described as a white paper, written by fossil fuel-funded contrarians Joseph D’Aleo and Craig Idso along with James Wallace III. Two months ago, D’Aleo and Wallace published another error-riddled white paper on the same website with fellow contrarian John Christy; both papers aimed to undermine the EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

The Endangerment Finding concluded that the scientific research clearly shows that carbon pollution endangers public health and welfare via climate change impacts, and therefore according to the US Supreme Court, the EPA must regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. Conservatives who benefit from the fossil fuel status quo and oppose all climate policies have urged the Trump administration to go after the Endangerment Finding.

Both papers are rife with flaws because they start from a desired conclusion – that the science underpinning Endangerment Finding is somehow wrong – and work backwards trying to support it. In this paper, the contrarians try to undermine the accuracy of the global surface temperature record, which has been validated time and time again. They don’t bother trying to hide their bias – the paper refers to “Climate Alarmists” and speaks of invalidating the Endangerment Finding.

The errors in the white paper
The paper itself has little scientific content. Using charts taken from climate denier blogs, the authors claim that every temperature record adjustment since the 1980s has been in the warming direction, which is simply false. As Zeke Hausfather pointed out, referencing work by Nick Stokes, roughly half of the adjustments have resulted in cooling and half in warming. Moreover, the net adjustment to the raw data actually reduces the long-term global warming trend:

 

[Crick]

And <data:blog.pageTitle/>

 

[skookerasbil]

Fascinating and astonishing to see educated people so lacking in the area of abstract thought. How the fuck did these people navigate their way through college? They think the world revolves around who can win the debate in some nether-region of the internet? Where do people get this this shit?

Most fascinating? This elitist attitude from AGW loyalists that people skeptical of the science are this tiny minority of non-believers!

But in the real world ( outside the domain of climate scientists) the exact opposite is true. Think about it for a moment. All over the world and especially in the US, policy makers ( legislators ) routinely reject AGW theory. Outright rejection btw.....

So isnt falling all over oneself to defend temperature data-sets on temperature an exercise in group navel contemplation?

The strategies/efforts of the AGW crowd for decades now have been a profound failure. Yet they continue on the same path year after year after year! And they call skeptics "dumb".

I dont even think board members like Crick comprehend on any level how hopeless their cause is! Scary shit!

 

[Crick]

That must be why every nation on this planet except THIS ONE is in the Paris Climate Accord.

God are you FUCKING STUPID

 

[skookerasbil]

That must be why every nation on this planet except THIS ONE is in the Paris Climate Accord.

God are you FUCKING STUPID

Lol.....the Paris Climate Accord. Again s0n....that treaty is a symbol only. A billboard. All climate accords have been SPECTACULAR failures!



Only progressives get giddy about symbolic shit.

Yep....I'm the asshole stupid guy here!

The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy


Why the Kyoto agreement failed - The Research Council of Norway

Current Climate Pledges Aren't Enough to Stop Severe Warming

 

[skookerasbil]

UN climate accord 'inadequate' and lacks urgency, experts warn

I love being the stupid one around here!. What does that say about other board members in here?

 

[skookerasbil]

Here’s How Far the World Is From Meeting Its Climate Goals

 

[skookerasbil]

From the far left NY Daily News.....

The global Paris climate failure

 

[skookerasbil]

Hmmm......where did Crick disappear to?

You know s0n.....that old saying, "95% of life is just showing up". Its so true.....I just show up in here and utterly pwn every AGW dolt. Funny as shit!

 

[percysunshine]

A bit of snow this morning, just below freezing. The rest of the northern hemisphere is rather warmer than normal.

Why is Nebraska a blue state?

 

[skookerasbil]

Moral of the thread?

Words and symbolism dont matter for dick. Results/action are the only things that matter!

 

[Crick]

That has nothing to do with the thread.