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

[Billy_Bob]

version 2 GISS graph

version 3 GISS graph

notice the y axis. it is 0.5C higher in version 3 but graph is identical pre-1915, and almost identical pre-1970. what would cause an across the board increase of older temps? remember the version 2 numbers are already cleaned up and homogenized, just not by the version 3 algorithms. UHI and TOBS were already correct for. the trend doesnt look a whole lot different but still.....

PS- this is not the same Raleigh station that is mention by BEST in my previous posts, it is the only one available off the GISS station selector.

This lie has already been rebutted in this very thread earlier. Repeating it does not suddenly make it valid.

Hahahaha. The first 40 years are an exact match, less the 0.5C offset but Eddie says they are different stations. How desperate. It's not unlike Crick saying that the Mythbuster's experiment that showed a CO2 reading of 7% must have been measuring something else unrelated to the experiment.

You were already linked to the differences between V2 and V3 and why V3 is more accurate. I will remind you that there were also adjustments in the opposite direction from V2 to V3, but the deceivers who feed you misinformation leave that out because they know you will ignore it even though I linked to it earlier in this very thread.

I dont think this is right so I am gonna just add 3 deg C to make it right.. the circular logic is stunning...

 

[edthecynic]

version 2 GISS graph

version 3 GISS graph

notice the y axis. it is 0.5C higher in version 3 but graph is identical pre-1915, and almost identical pre-1970. what would cause an across the board increase of older temps? remember the version 2 numbers are already cleaned up and homogenized, just not by the version 3 algorithms. UHI and TOBS were already correct for. the trend doesnt look a whole lot different but still.....

PS- this is not the same Raleigh station that is mention by BEST in my previous posts, it is the only one available off the GISS station selector.

This lie has already been rebutted in this very thread earlier. Repeating it does not suddenly make it valid.

Hahahaha. The first 40 years are an exact match, less the 0.5C offset but Eddie says they are different stations. How desperate. It's not unlike Crick saying that the Mythbuster's experiment that showed a CO2 reading of 7% must have been measuring something else unrelated to the experiment.

You were already linked to the differences between V2 and V3 and why V3 is more accurate. I will remind you that there were also adjustments in the opposite direction from V2 to V3, but the deceivers who feed you misinformation leave that out because they know you will ignore it even though I linked to it earlier in this very thread.

I dont think this is right so I am gonna just add 3 deg C to make it right.. the circular logic is stunning...

There is no 3 deg C shift anywhere on those 2 graphs. You are a lousy liar!

 

[skookerasbil]

Messing with the data isn't science.

But agenda's must be met at all costs. To the AGW nutters, rigging the data is a noble cause.


The Green Agenda

 

[Billy_Bob]

version 2 GISS graph

version 3 GISS graph

notice the y axis. it is 0.5C higher in version 3 but graph is identical pre-1915, and almost identical pre-1970. what would cause an across the board increase of older temps? remember the version 2 numbers are already cleaned up and homogenized, just not by the version 3 algorithms. UHI and TOBS were already correct for. the trend doesnt look a whole lot different but still.....

PS- this is not the same Raleigh station that is mention by BEST in my previous posts, it is the only one available off the GISS station selector.

This lie has already been rebutted in this very thread earlier. Repeating it does not suddenly make it valid.

Hahahaha. The first 40 years are an exact match, less the 0.5C offset but Eddie says they are different stations. How desperate. It's not unlike Crick saying that the Mythbuster's experiment that showed a CO2 reading of 7% must have been measuring something else unrelated to the experiment.

You were already linked to the differences between V2 and V3 and why V3 is more accurate. I will remind you that there were also adjustments in the opposite direction from V2 to V3, but the deceivers who feed you misinformation leave that out because they know you will ignore it even though I linked to it earlier in this very thread.

I dont think this is right so I am gonna just add 3 deg C to make it right.. the circular logic is stunning...

There is no 3 deg C shift anywhere on those 2 graphs. You are a lousy liar!

Tell me.. If a graph shows a -1.5 deg trend and the new improved graph shows a +1.5 deg c trend what is the shift? I have to bring out crayons to teach idiots..

 

[edthecynic]

This lie has already been rebutted in this very thread earlier. Repeating it does not suddenly make it valid.

Hahahaha. The first 40 years are an exact match, less the 0.5C offset but Eddie says they are different stations. How desperate. It's not unlike Crick saying that the Mythbuster's experiment that showed a CO2 reading of 7% must have been measuring something else unrelated to the experiment.

You were already linked to the differences between V2 and V3 and why V3 is more accurate. I will remind you that there were also adjustments in the opposite direction from V2 to V3, but the deceivers who feed you misinformation leave that out because they know you will ignore it even though I linked to it earlier in this very thread.

I dont think this is right so I am gonna just add 3 deg C to make it right.. the circular logic is stunning...

There is no 3 deg C shift anywhere on those 2 graphs. You are a lousy liar!

Tell me.. If a graph shows a -1.5 deg trend and the new improved graph shows a +1.5 deg c trend what is the shift? I have to bring out crayons to teach idiots..

There is no such shift in the 2 graphs. Not even crayons can help you.

 

[skookerasbil]

The AGW fascists will throw themselves off a cliff to protect the sanctity of the established narrative. But fiacts are facts.........the scientists are fudging the data and you can find it in lots of places, including The Guardian, The New York Times et. al.. Of course Im a fucking skeptic. No matter what information is exposed to counter the established narrative, the typical AGW fascist will reject it.............invariably

 

[skookerasbil]

Notice gentlemen.........suddenly little interest in this thread from the AGW k00ks. They have collectively decided, "better let this one slip off the front page and into oblivion because we are looking like dicks!"

fing weenies do this all the time..........when you're getting your ass pwned, bail!!!!!

weak


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gay-hair-stylist.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[mamooth]

That's Skook's current selfie, in case anyone didn't know.

Let's keep piling the humiliation on the denier kooks, being that they deserve it, on account of their years of fraud and fudging. Even the right-leaning Politifact keeps rating the claims of skook and Billy as "Pants On Fire". And that's what the world sees. What the world doesn't see is a couple deneir frauds crying on a message board.

Fox News host Climate scientists fabricated temperature data PunditFact

Fox s Doocy NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming PunditFact

 

[bripat9643]

That's Skook's current selfie, in case anyone didn't know.

Let's keep piling the humiliation on the denier kooks, being that they deserve it, on account of their years of fraud and fudging. Even the right-leaning Politifact keeps rating the claims of skook and Billy as "Pants On Fire". And that's what the world sees. What the world doesn't see is a couple deneir frauds crying on a message board.

Fox News host Climate scientists fabricated temperature data PunditFact

Fox s Doocy NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming PunditFact

It's impossible to put into words how full of shit you are.

 

[mamooth]

The Willie Soon thing is blowing up big in the faces of the deniers. It's something that people can understand, how all the denier hacks were being paid to lie. That's why you hear that note of hysteria in their voices, as Bri so kindly demonstrates.

House Dems Did Big Oil seek to sway scientists in climate debate - The Washington Post

Willie Soon was probably just the tip of the iceberg. Popcorn time.

 

[jc456]

The Willie Soon thing is blowing up big in the faces of the deniers. It's something that people can understand, how all the denier hacks were being paid to lie. That's why you hear that note of hysteria in their voices, as Bri so kindly demonstrates.

House Dems Did Big Oil seek to sway scientists in climate debate - The Washington Post

Willie Soon was probably just the tip of the iceberg. Popcorn time.

I want to see it through. Let's see where the hack job really is.

 

[bripat9643]

The Willie Soon thing is blowing up big in the faces of the deniers. It's something that people can understand, how all the denier hacks were being paid to lie. That's why you hear that note of hysteria in their voices, as Bri so kindly demonstrates.

House Dems Did Big Oil seek to sway scientists in climate debate - The Washington Post

Willie Soon was probably just the tip of the iceberg. Popcorn time.

You're entitled to your delusions, but this is nothing new. Smearing their critics is an old AGW cult member propaganda meme. It hasn't worked in the past, so what makes you think it's going to work now? If there is anyone with a credibility problem, it's the gang who has been caught red handed doctoring their data and making up graphs that have no connection with reality.

 

[depotoo]

I know it was available a few years back. I don't know about today.

Paraguay is much smaller than the US, even if the data is off there, the overall warming in the world put 2014 in the top four warmest years on record. 1998, super El Nino, 2005, seven years later, moderate El Nino, five years later, 2010, moderate El Nino, four years later, ENSO neutral, 2014.

The only scandal is that people in this nation are so scientifically illiterate that they will accept WUWT and Briebart over real scientists.

is it even possible to find enough mistakes, inconsistencies, glaring errors, etc to get you off your excuse of 'it's only small piece of the puzzle, it doesnt matter'.

NASA/NOAA actually thinks Pilar Paraguay is in Argentina! it's right on their website! how bad does the mistake have to be before you think it is worth investigating the cause?

It is interesting that they make the data available. The question is, is the data the adjusted temperatures or the observed and recoreded temperature? I don't know, do you?

Where can I get My hands on the actual recorded temperatures? Not the adjusted ones, but the ones that an observer looked at and recorded. Does this data even exist anymore?

 

[depotoo]

Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable Other
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/watts_is_surface_temp_reliable.pdf
Mid term census report of the Surface Stations Project: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? -


Home

 

[skookerasbil]

poor FTG!!!!

Whole lot of orange going on there!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

This thread needs to stay up at the top of the face page s0ns!!!

People need to know they are being bamboozled.

 

[IanC]

Did any of the major Global Dataset players announce that they were making large and arbitrary changes to historical temperature readings? 15-30 years ago? No?

Are older climate papers still relevant if they used 'unadjusted' or 'incompletely adjusted' data?

Are climate models running hot because they are tuned to unrealistically hot datasets? Are correlations corrupted when variations are 'removed'?

 

[mamooth]

Did any of the major Global Dataset players announce that they were making large and arbitrary changes to historical temperature readings?

No.

That was easy.

So what's the point of all those rhetorical questions?

 

[skookerasbil]

rigging the data is ghey

 

[depotoo]

According to friends of mine in the industry, the data sets have been manipulated for years now. They have access to the original datasets. And they are pissed.

Did any of the major Global Dataset players announce that they were making large and arbitrary changes to historical temperature readings? 15-30 years ago? No?

Are older climate papers still relevant if they used 'unadjusted' or 'incompletely adjusted' data?

Are climate models running hot because they are tuned to unrealistically hot datasets? Are correlations corrupted when variations are 'removed'?