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

[edthecynic]

Learned it from the Right who reject all sources not biased Right. Funny thing is, the Right will not tolerate their own rationalizations when they bite them in their hypocritical asses!

How about addressing the OP.

The OP has no credibility to address, you know that. It even admits the "scenario" is imaginary.
"the scenario I’ve just described is more or less"
Quite a bit less!!!

What "scenario?" The OP contains the actual data before and after it is "homogenized." There is no "scenario." Are you claiming the data posted is a lie?

I quoted them admitting it was made up. BigotBarf "homogenized" the data, like the Right always does. Post the data and prove me wrong. You can't because Bigot posted no data that they didn't manufacture, so all data depends on the credibility of BigotBarf, and they have none!

The irony impaired far left/AGW cult members and their comments..

That's not data, post the data.

 

[Kosh]

How about addressing the OP.

The OP has no credibility to address, you know that. It even admits the "scenario" is imaginary.
"the scenario I’ve just described is more or less"
Quite a bit less!!!

What "scenario?" The OP contains the actual data before and after it is "homogenized." There is no "scenario." Are you claiming the data posted is a lie?

I quoted them admitting it was made up. BigotBarf "homogenized" the data, like the Right always does. Post the data and prove me wrong. You can't because Bigot posted no data that they didn't manufacture, so all data depends on the credibility of BigotBarf, and they have none!

The irony impaired far left/AGW cult members and their comments..

That's not data, post the data.

It was posted..

However not one of the AGW cult members can seem to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate. Even in the modern era since the 90's no one can seem to find that data..

 

[bripat9643]

It's amazing how consistently the Liberal response never addresses the issue, they just attack and dismiss the source. Sure is easier that way, eh?

Learned it from the Right who reject all sources not biased Right. Funny thing is, the Right will not tolerate their own rationalizations when they bite them in their hypocritical asses!

How about addressing the OP.

The OP has no credibility to address, you know that. It even admits the "scenario" is imaginary.
"the scenario I’ve just described is more or less"
Quite a bit less!!!

What "scenario?" The OP contains the actual data before and after it is "homogenized." There is no "scenario." Are you claiming the data posted is a lie?

I quoted them admitting it was made up. BigotBarf "homogenized" the data, like the Right always does. Post the data and prove me wrong. You can't because Bigot posted no data that they didn't manufacture, so all data depends on the credibility of BigotBarf, and they have none!

No, NASA homogenized the data. All the graphs can be found on NASA's website if you just follow the links posted with them. NASA is the source of all the data.

 

[bripat9643]

How about addressing the OP.

The OP has no credibility to address, you know that. It even admits the "scenario" is imaginary.
"the scenario I’ve just described is more or less"
Quite a bit less!!!

What "scenario?" The OP contains the actual data before and after it is "homogenized." There is no "scenario." Are you claiming the data posted is a lie?

I quoted them admitting it was made up. BigotBarf "homogenized" the data, like the Right always does. Post the data and prove me wrong. You can't because Bigot posted no data that they didn't manufacture, so all data depends on the credibility of BigotBarf, and they have none!

The irony impaired far left/AGW cult members and their comments..

That's not data, post the data.

It has already been posted.

 

[edthecynic]

The OP has no credibility to address, you know that. It even admits the "scenario" is imaginary.
"the scenario I’ve just described is more or less"
Quite a bit less!!!

What "scenario?" The OP contains the actual data before and after it is "homogenized." There is no "scenario." Are you claiming the data posted is a lie?

I quoted them admitting it was made up. BigotBarf "homogenized" the data, like the Right always does. Post the data and prove me wrong. You can't because Bigot posted no data that they didn't manufacture, so all data depends on the credibility of BigotBarf, and they have none!

The irony impaired far left/AGW cult members and their comments..

That's not data, post the data.

It was posted..

However not one of the AGW cult members can seem to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate. Even in the modern era since the 90's no one can seem to find that data..

No it wasn't. What was posted was BigotBarf's admitted homogenization scenario of the data. Everything posted came from BigotBarf, not the climate stations. BigotBarf has no credibility. You would never accept anything from PMSNBC as a source, would you?

 

[bripat9643]

What "scenario?" The OP contains the actual data before and after it is "homogenized." There is no "scenario." Are you claiming the data posted is a lie?

I quoted them admitting it was made up. BigotBarf "homogenized" the data, like the Right always does. Post the data and prove me wrong. You can't because Bigot posted no data that they didn't manufacture, so all data depends on the credibility of BigotBarf, and they have none!

The irony impaired far left/AGW cult members and their comments..

That's not data, post the data.

It was posted..

However not one of the AGW cult members can seem to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate. Even in the modern era since the 90's no one can seem to find that data..

No it wasn't. What was posted was BigotBarf's admitted homogenization scenario of the data. Everything posted came from BigotBarf, not the climate stations. BigotBarf has no credibility. You would never accept anything from PMSNBC as a source, would you?

Nope. Those graphs all come from the NASA website. Just follow the links and you'll see.

 

[Kosh]

What "scenario?" The OP contains the actual data before and after it is "homogenized." There is no "scenario." Are you claiming the data posted is a lie?

I quoted them admitting it was made up. BigotBarf "homogenized" the data, like the Right always does. Post the data and prove me wrong. You can't because Bigot posted no data that they didn't manufacture, so all data depends on the credibility of BigotBarf, and they have none!

The irony impaired far left/AGW cult members and their comments..

That's not data, post the data.

It was posted..

However not one of the AGW cult members can seem to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate. Even in the modern era since the 90's no one can seem to find that data..

No it wasn't. What was posted was BigotBarf's admitted homogenization scenario of the data. Everything posted came from BigotBarf, not the climate stations. BigotBarf has no credibility. You would never accept anything from PMSNBC as a source, would you?

So no link to the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate..

Well once again proving that AGW cult runs on their religious narrative..

 

[edthecynic]

I quoted them admitting it was made up. BigotBarf "homogenized" the data, like the Right always does. Post the data and prove me wrong. You can't because Bigot posted no data that they didn't manufacture, so all data depends on the credibility of BigotBarf, and they have none!

The irony impaired far left/AGW cult members and their comments..

That's not data, post the data.

It was posted..

However not one of the AGW cult members can seem to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate. Even in the modern era since the 90's no one can seem to find that data..

No it wasn't. What was posted was BigotBarf's admitted homogenization scenario of the data. Everything posted came from BigotBarf, not the climate stations. BigotBarf has no credibility. You would never accept anything from PMSNBC as a source, would you?

Nope. Those graphs all come from the NASA website. Just follow the links and you'll see.

But the "adjusted" graph has a LOWER number, meaning came first, than the "raw" graph.

For example, the Puerto Casado "raw" graph has 308860860004 0 km at the top and the "adjusted" has 308860860000 0 km. Why would the "adjusted" have a lower number if it came after the "raw?"

If anything GISS is lowering the numbers!!!

 

[Kosh]

The irony impaired far left/AGW cult members and their comments..

That's not data, post the data.

It was posted..

However not one of the AGW cult members can seem to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate. Even in the modern era since the 90's no one can seem to find that data..

No it wasn't. What was posted was BigotBarf's admitted homogenization scenario of the data. Everything posted came from BigotBarf, not the climate stations. BigotBarf has no credibility. You would never accept anything from PMSNBC as a source, would you?

Nope. Those graphs all come from the NASA website. Just follow the links and you'll see.

But the "adjusted" graph has a LOWER number, meaning came first, than the "raw" graph.

For example, the Puerto Casado "raw" graph has 308860860004 0 km at the top and the "adjusted" has 308860860000 0 km. Why would the "adjusted" have a lower number if it came after the "raw?"

If anything GISS is lowering the numbers!!!

Well if that is the case then how do they keep going up when reported by the AGW loyalists?

 

[IanC]

It's amazing how consistently the Liberal response never addresses the issue, they just attack and dismiss the source. Sure is easier that way, eh?

Learned it from the Right who reject all sources not biased Right. Funny thing is, the Right will not tolerate their own rationalizations when they bite them in their hypocritical asses!

How about addressing the OP.

The OP has no credibility to address, you know that. It even admits the "scenario" is imaginary.
"the scenario I’ve just described is more or less"
Quite a bit less!!!

What "scenario?" The OP contains the actual data before and after it is "homogenized." There is no "scenario." Are you claiming the data posted is a lie?

I quoted them admitting it was made up. BigotBarf "homogenized" the data, like the Right always does. Post the data and prove me wrong. You can't because Bigot posted no data that they didn't manufacture, so all data depends on the credibility of BigotBarf, and they have none!

I am confused about which data you want. the graphs are from GISS, if I remember that article correctly.

there are lots of links and such at All Of Paraguay s Temperature Record Has Been Tampered With US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I think my last comment there is hilarious! NOAA/NCDC has Pilar Paraquay as being in Argentina!!!! hahahahaha

 

[edthecynic]

Well if that is the case then how do they keep going up when reported by the AGW loyalists?

Because even after adjusting the temperatures DOWN, as the number sequence at the top of the graphs show, 2014 was still the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement. If the "real" raw data were used, it would be even warmer!!!

 

[Kosh]

Well if that is the case then how do they keep going up when reported by the AGW loyalists?

Because even after adjusting the temperatures DOWN, as the number sequence at the top of the graphs show, 2014 was still the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement. If the "real" raw data were used, it would be even warmer!!!

Wrong! As you push the AGW religious propaganda!

UK Met Office says 2014 was NOT the hottest year ever due to 8216 uncertainty ranges 8217 of the data Watts Up With That

 

[IanC]

The irony impaired far left/AGW cult members and their comments..

That's not data, post the data.

It was posted..

However not one of the AGW cult members can seem to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate. Even in the modern era since the 90's no one can seem to find that data..

No it wasn't. What was posted was BigotBarf's admitted homogenization scenario of the data. Everything posted came from BigotBarf, not the climate stations. BigotBarf has no credibility. You would never accept anything from PMSNBC as a source, would you?

Nope. Those graphs all come from the NASA website. Just follow the links and you'll see.

But the "adjusted" graph has a LOWER number, meaning came first, than the "raw" graph.

For example, the Puerto Casado "raw" graph has 308860860004 0 km at the top and the "adjusted" has 308860860000 0 km. Why would the "adjusted" have a lower number if it came after the "raw?"

If anything GISS is lowering the numbers!!!

"
Station ID Codes
GHCND PA000086086
GHCNM 30886086000
GSOD 860860-99999
HADCRU 860860
ICAO SGLV
USAF 860860
WMO 86086
WMSSC 860860
WWR 86086
"

that number is a station code. the last digit probably describes which kind of data it is

 

[edthecynic]

there are lots of links and such at All Of Paraguay s Temperature Record Has Been Tampered With US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Your graphs do the same thing. The "old" graphs have higher numbers, meaning came after, the "new" graphs. The data is actually being adjusted down at these individual stations and yet even after these reductions the adjusted data still shows warming globally. The real raw data shows even more warming.

 

[edthecynic]

That's not data, post the data.

It was posted..

However not one of the AGW cult members can seem to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate. Even in the modern era since the 90's no one can seem to find that data..

No it wasn't. What was posted was BigotBarf's admitted homogenization scenario of the data. Everything posted came from BigotBarf, not the climate stations. BigotBarf has no credibility. You would never accept anything from PMSNBC as a source, would you?

Nope. Those graphs all come from the NASA website. Just follow the links and you'll see.

But the "adjusted" graph has a LOWER number, meaning came first, than the "raw" graph.

For example, the Puerto Casado "raw" graph has 308860860004 0 km at the top and the "adjusted" has 308860860000 0 km. Why would the "adjusted" have a lower number if it came after the "raw?"

If anything GISS is lowering the numbers!!!

"
Station ID Codes
GHCND PA000086086
GHCNM 30886086000
GSOD 860860-99999
HADCRU 860860
ICAO SGLV
USAF 860860
WMO 86086
WMSSC 860860
WWR 86086
"

that number is a station code. the last digit probably describes which kind of data it is

Then the changed last digit means you deniers are dishonestly comparing different "kinds" of data as if they are the same. Why am I not surprised?!!!

 

[Kosh]

It was posted..

However not one of the AGW cult members can seem to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate. Even in the modern era since the 90's no one can seem to find that data..

No it wasn't. What was posted was BigotBarf's admitted homogenization scenario of the data. Everything posted came from BigotBarf, not the climate stations. BigotBarf has no credibility. You would never accept anything from PMSNBC as a source, would you?

Nope. Those graphs all come from the NASA website. Just follow the links and you'll see.

But the "adjusted" graph has a LOWER number, meaning came first, than the "raw" graph.

For example, the Puerto Casado "raw" graph has 308860860004 0 km at the top and the "adjusted" has 308860860000 0 km. Why would the "adjusted" have a lower number if it came after the "raw?"

If anything GISS is lowering the numbers!!!

"
Station ID Codes
GHCND PA000086086
GHCNM 30886086000
GSOD 860860-99999
HADCRU 860860
ICAO SGLV
USAF 860860
WMO 86086
WMSSC 860860
WWR 86086
"

that number is a station code. the last digit probably describes which kind of data it is

Then the changed last digit means you deniers are dishonestly comparing different "kinds" of data as if they are the same. Why am I not surprised?!!!

Wrong!

 

[IanC]

ed- you should get up to speed on this story.

homogenization has turned a cooling trend into a warming trend. Cowtan says its because of a calibration error. Zeke says the BEST breakpoints are necessary, GISS doesnt answer inquiries from peons. at least watch Cowtan's video at Skeptical Science, if only to find out that the w

It was posted..

However not one of the AGW cult members can seem to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate. Even in the modern era since the 90's no one can seem to find that data..

No it wasn't. What was posted was BigotBarf's admitted homogenization scenario of the data. Everything posted came from BigotBarf, not the climate stations. BigotBarf has no credibility. You would never accept anything from PMSNBC as a source, would you?

Nope. Those graphs all come from the NASA website. Just follow the links and you'll see.

But the "adjusted" graph has a LOWER number, meaning came first, than the "raw" graph.

For example, the Puerto Casado "raw" graph has 308860860004 0 km at the top and the "adjusted" has 308860860000 0 km. Why would the "adjusted" have a lower number if it came after the "raw?"

If anything GISS is lowering the numbers!!!

"
Station ID Codes
GHCND PA000086086
GHCNM 30886086000
GSOD 860860-99999
HADCRU 860860
ICAO SGLV
USAF 860860
WMO 86086
WMSSC 860860
WWR 86086
"

that number is a station code. the last digit probably describes which kind of data it is

Then the changed last digit means you deniers are dishonestly comparing different "kinds" of data as if they are the same. Why am I not surprised?!!!

Ed- the graphs clearly state raw and adjusted. The question here is whether the homogenized adjustments are justified, and when will the public get the explanation.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[edthecynic]

ed- you should get up to speed on this story.

homogenization has turned a cooling trend into a warming trend. Cowtan says its because of a calibration error. Zeke says the BEST breakpoints are necessary, GISS doesnt answer inquiries from peons. at least watch Cowtan's video at Skeptical Science, if only to find out that the w

No it wasn't. What was posted was BigotBarf's admitted homogenization scenario of the data. Everything posted came from BigotBarf, not the climate stations. BigotBarf has no credibility. You would never accept anything from PMSNBC as a source, would you?

Nope. Those graphs all come from the NASA website. Just follow the links and you'll see.

But the "adjusted" graph has a LOWER number, meaning came first, than the "raw" graph.

For example, the Puerto Casado "raw" graph has 308860860004 0 km at the top and the "adjusted" has 308860860000 0 km. Why would the "adjusted" have a lower number if it came after the "raw?"

If anything GISS is lowering the numbers!!!

"
Station ID Codes
GHCND PA000086086
GHCNM 30886086000
GSOD 860860-99999
HADCRU 860860
ICAO SGLV
USAF 860860
WMO 86086
WMSSC 860860
WWR 86086
"

that number is a station code. the last digit probably describes which kind of data it is

Then the changed last digit means you deniers are dishonestly comparing different "kinds" of data as if they are the same. Why am I not surprised?!!!

Ed- the graphs clearly state raw and adjusted. The question here is whether the homogenized adjustments are justified, and when will the public get the explanation.

And it is you dishonest deniers who did the mislabeling. Clearly the "adjusted" mislabeled graphs came earlier in the series than the mislabeled "raw" graphs. Admit it, you deniers got caught lying yet again. When will deniers admit the truth to the public?

 

[edthecynic]

No it wasn't. What was posted was BigotBarf's admitted homogenization scenario of the data. Everything posted came from BigotBarf, not the climate stations. BigotBarf has no credibility. You would never accept anything from PMSNBC as a source, would you?

Nope. Those graphs all come from the NASA website. Just follow the links and you'll see.

But the "adjusted" graph has a LOWER number, meaning came first, than the "raw" graph.

For example, the Puerto Casado "raw" graph has 308860860004 0 km at the top and the "adjusted" has 308860860000 0 km. Why would the "adjusted" have a lower number if it came after the "raw?"

If anything GISS is lowering the numbers!!!

"
Station ID Codes
GHCND PA000086086
GHCNM 30886086000
GSOD 860860-99999
HADCRU 860860
ICAO SGLV
USAF 860860
WMO 86086
WMSSC 860860
WWR 86086
"

that number is a station code. the last digit probably describes which kind of data it is

Then the changed last digit means you deniers are dishonestly comparing different "kinds" of data as if they are the same. Why am I not surprised?!!!

Wrong!

When a denier says I'm wrong, obviously I'm RIGHT!