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

[Crick]

Then where are their complaints? I find it astounding that if the gatekeepers to all these data had been improperly manipulating these data as charged, that none of the thousands of scientists who use those data on a regular basis have complained. Even Judith Curry has said its a non-issue and that the adjustments are justified. The only people complaining are denier bloggers and folks on sites like this one. Not much of an argument.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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'?

Their arbitrary adjustments make all science prior to the adjustment suspect or they show that current agenda trumps science.. So which science is correct?

Using the upwardly adjusted data shoves the CO2 sensitivity level into the realm of the failed models which, in their estimation should give them credibility so to speak. But the stop of global warming now 18 years 3 months and the subsequent cooling since 2002 show even the adjusted crap waste..

The adjustments were an attempt to regain credibility in the general public's eyes, but we exposed the charlatan snake oil sales men before they could finish the lie and data corruption. They were caught red handed in the cookie jar.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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'?

Many data sets have been corrupted. several folks i am acquainted with are scanning in old logs and rebuilding many data sets where the original data is no longer available to the public while the homogenized adjusted is touted as the original.. why would they want to deceive the public? This is not the work of scientists but the work of agenda driven whores...

 

[mamooth]

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.

And according to my sister-in-law's cousin's hairdresser's aunt's plumber's best pal, the Slender Man took away 3 children who lived next door. Because he was pissed.

Urban legends. They're literally all the deniers have left.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

And according to my sister-in-law's cousin's hairdresser's aunt's plumber's best pal, the Slender Man took away 3 children who lived next door. Because he was pissed.

Urban legends. They're literally all the deniers have left.

Hairball is a legend in its own mind....

 

[depotoo]

Make fun all you want, the truth will eventually come out and you will be sitting on the wrong side of the equation. Better make your money and run while you can.

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.

And according to my sister-in-law's cousin's hairdresser's aunt's plumber's best pal, the Slender Man took away 3 children who lived next door. Because he was pissed.

Urban legends. They're literally all the deniers have left.

 

[ralfy]

Climate Denial Empire Strikes Back with Bogus Temperature Story Climate Denial Crock of the Week

with links to more articles

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate Denial Empire Strikes Back with Bogus Temperature Story Climate Denial Crock of the Week

with links to more articles

Skeptical Scinece... John Cooks little corner of paid for by Geroge Soros and Joe Romm... OMG!!! you really posted this propaganda crap?

 

[depotoo]

You can't just rely on articles. You have to examine all the research.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf
According to GAO’s survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records.

...
over 600 stations have been taken offline due to being incorrect.
If numbers appear faulty or if more than nine days are missing from a single month's tally, the whole month is thrown out, according to NCDC documents, and the Center uses a computer program to determine average temperatures at dozens of nearby stations to guess what the temperature would have been for the month at the unknown station.
The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset

Climate Denial Empire Strikes Back with Bogus Temperature Story Climate Denial Crock of the Week

with links to more articles

 

[edthecynic]

You can't just rely on articles. You have to examine all the research.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf
According to GAO’s survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records.

...
over 600 stations have been taken offline due to being incorrect.
If numbers appear faulty or if more than nine days are missing from a single month's tally, the whole month is thrown out, according to NCDC documents, and the Center uses a computer program to determine average temperatures at dozens of nearby stations to guess what the temperature would have been for the month at the unknown station.
The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset

And deniers want to keep the known to be faulty data from the poorly sited stations because the faulty data reduces the warming trend.

If you remember the deniers insisted that the data from poorly sited stations be removed because they thought it increased the warming trend, but when the data deniers demanded to be removed was removed and the warming trend increased, they claimed "foul" and now demand the faulty data be put back.

 

[skookerasbil]

Then where are their complaints? I find it astounding that if the gatekeepers to all these data had been improperly manipulating these data as charged, that none of the thousands of scientists who use those data on a regular basis have complained. Even Judith Curry has said its a non-issue and that the adjustments are justified. The only people complaining are denier bloggers and folks on sites like this one. Not much of an argument.

Curry also said the bomb throwing is inappropriate and off the mark. In other words, the alarmist view is over the top.......which of course we've known for at least 2 decades.


Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry warns of decades of possible global cooling Suggests the current cool phase will continue until the 2030s Climate Depot


Global Warming The Most Dishonest Year on Record

Global Warming Alarmists Are Overrun By The Facts Watts Up With That

New paper from Dr. Judith Curry could explain the pause Watts Up With That

Congress Cancels Global Warming Hearing Because of Snowstorm FrontPage Magazine



LINKS > Conjecture................every time!!

 

[skookerasbil]

LiNkS

 

[skookerasbil]

Breaking New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government Principia Scientific Intl

 

[Billy_Bob]

Breaking New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government Principia Scientific Intl

Isnt Data Manipulation grand....

 

[idb]

The climate doesn't care whether you believe that it's changing or not.

 

[IanC]

USA data and ROW (rest of world) data are somewhat different. US data is in large part collected by volunteers who read the thermometers at convenient times, often in the morning. this necessitated adding TOB adjustments. ROW is more often associated with data collected by professionals as a part of their duties. their data is often contaminated by UHI but it is not adjusted in any meaningful way, the adjustments basically add up to zero.

I agree with the concept of TOB adjustments but I am not entirely sure that it has been accomplished in a reasonable manner. I think there should be a UHI adjustment because even though cities and towns are a small percentage of the Earth they make up a majority of the station locations. a difference of many degrees C is usual for the trend between the centre and the outskirts of a city. I find it incomprehensible that it doesnt show up on a long term basis even though just about every community increases in size, population and developed areas. BEST even finds a negative value for UHI. ????

the point of this post is that different parts of the world have to bee looked at differently. the USA has different problems that Europe. Africa has different problems than Australia. many explanations from the 'experts' conflate the problems and solutions from one area to another area. the global datasets say it doesnt matter if any one station or area is wrong, even flagrantly wrong, because the 'algorithm' is working as expected! so dont expect the official temperature record to match the actual temperature readings.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You can't just rely on articles. You have to examine all the research.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf
According to GAO’s survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records.

...
over 600 stations have been taken offline due to being incorrect.
If numbers appear faulty or if more than nine days are missing from a single month's tally, the whole month is thrown out, according to NCDC documents, and the Center uses a computer program to determine average temperatures at dozens of nearby stations to guess what the temperature would have been for the month at the unknown station.
The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset

And deniers want to keep the known to be faulty data from the poorly sited stations because the faulty data reduces the warming trend.

If you remember the deniers insisted that the data from poorly sited stations be removed because they thought it increased the warming trend, but when the data deniers demanded to be removed was removed and the warming trend increased, they claimed "foul" and now demand the faulty data be put back.

Home

The study done by Anthony Watts and several other scientist disprove your denier meme.. The longer you all deny true science the longer it will take for you to realize you have been fooled..

 

[edthecynic]

You can't just rely on articles. You have to examine all the research.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf
According to GAO’s survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records.

...
over 600 stations have been taken offline due to being incorrect.
If numbers appear faulty or if more than nine days are missing from a single month's tally, the whole month is thrown out, according to NCDC documents, and the Center uses a computer program to determine average temperatures at dozens of nearby stations to guess what the temperature would have been for the month at the unknown station.
The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset

And deniers want to keep the known to be faulty data from the poorly sited stations because the faulty data reduces the warming trend.

If you remember the deniers insisted that the data from poorly sited stations be removed because they thought it increased the warming trend, but when the data deniers demanded to be removed was removed and the warming trend increased, they claimed "foul" and now demand the faulty data be put back.

Home

The study done by Anthony Watts and several other scientist disprove your denier meme.. The longer you all deny true science the longer it will take for you to realize you have been fooled..

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.

 

[IanC]

The study done by Anthony Watts and several other scientist disprove your denier meme.. The longer you all deny true science the longer it will take for you to realize you have been fooled..

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.[/QUOTE]

and you call us liars!

here is a graphic from Watt's paper -

compliant staions are comparable to satellite data. non-compliant stations are much warmer. and NOAA is much higher than either one!!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Any data refusing to acknowledge Global Warming must be altered