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

[edthecynic]

Now that I have caught the deniers lowering the temperatures from the raw data, future blink graphs will delete the ID code number at the top!!!

 

[IanC]

Ed never follows through on his thoughts. He declares 'anomalies' as the only 'scientific' way to deal with temperatures. and that is true when you are adding together trends from different stations to get a regional or global trend.

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

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?

raw- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


why don't you check any of this out for yourself?

 

[edthecynic]

Ed never follows through on his thoughts. He declares 'anomalies' as the only 'scientific' way to deal with temperatures. and that is true when you are adding together trends from different stations to get a regional or global trend.

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

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?

raw- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


why don't you check any of this out for yourself?

You are simply mislabeling the raw as adjusted. Nothing at either link indicates raw or otherwise.

 

[IanC]

Ed never follows through on his thoughts. He declares 'anomalies' as the only 'scientific' way to deal with temperatures. and that is true when you are adding together trends from different stations to get a regional or global trend.

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

"
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?

raw- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


why don't you check any of this out for yourself?

You are simply mislabeling the raw as adjusted. Nothing at either link indicates raw or otherwise.

are you dense or lazy? or both?

go to the GISS station selector. you can google it for yourself or just hit this link. Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data

type in Puerto Casado, or just click on the map in the area of Paraguay(edit- and choose Puerto Casado out of the options of course). the graph that it retrieves will look like this-

does that look like the raw version or the adjusted version? does it have a zero at the end or not? this is the homogenized version that doesnt have that pesky drop at 1970

 

[edthecynic]

raw- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


why don't you check any of this out for yourself?

Here is the ACTUAL "adjusted" temperature analysis for the link you call "raw" with the ID 308860860004 comparing apples to apples, or in this case comparing adjusted and raw data from the ID ending in 4 for both cases.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860004&dt=1&ds=2

You get there for both graphs by using this link below and selecting the second pull down for your "raw" link and the third pull down for my "cleaning and homogeneity adjusted" link for the Puerto Casado station.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data Based on GHCN v2

Now admit your fellow deniers were being completely dishonest when they claim that the graph with the ID ending on 0 was the adjusted version of the raw data ending in ID 4.
And ask yourself, why does your side have to ALWAYS lie?!!!!!

 

[IanC]

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?

 

[IanC]

raw- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


why don't you check any of this out for yourself?

Here is the ACTUAL "adjusted" temperature analysis for the link you call "raw" with the ID 308860860004 comparing apples to apples, or in this case comparing adjusted and raw data from the ID ending in 4 for both cases.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

You get there for both graphs by using this link below and selecting the second pull down for your "raw" link and the third pull down for my "cleaning and homogeneity adjusted" link for the Puerto Casado station.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data Based on GHCN v2

Now admit your fellow deniers were being completely dishonest when they claim that the graph with the ID ending on 0 was the adjusted version of the raw data ending in ID 4.
And ask yourself, why does your side have to ALWAYS lie?!!!!!

all you need to do to get me to apologize profusely is to show me a graph that looks like that with data going out to 2014

 

[Darkwind]

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?

 

[edthecynic]

raw- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


why don't you check any of this out for yourself?

Here is the ACTUAL "adjusted" temperature analysis for the link you call "raw" with the ID 308860860004 comparing apples to apples, or in this case comparing adjusted and raw data from the ID ending in 4 for both cases.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

You get there for both graphs by using this link below and selecting the second pull down for your "raw" link and the third pull down for my "cleaning and homogeneity adjusted" link for the Puerto Casado station.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data Based on GHCN v2

Now admit your fellow deniers were being completely dishonest when they claim that the graph with the ID ending on 0 was the adjusted version of the raw data ending in ID 4.
And ask yourself, why does your side have to ALWAYS lie?!!!!!

all you need to do to get me to apologize profusely is to show me a graph that looks like that with data going out to 2014

Why? The link you provided as "raw" ending in ID 4 didn't go out to 2014, it went only to 2011. Why can't you admit your sources lied to you? I could put it back on you to show a "raw" data set ending in ID 0 going to 2014 that matches your "raw" graph.

Can you at least admit that the graph ending in ID 0 is a completely different data set from the graph with the ID ending in 4 and the two different data sets should not, in all honesty, be compared?

 

[skookerasbil]

Look at the responses from each and every one of the AGW crusaders!!!!

Answers the ? with 100% certainty..........."Why do they call it a 'religion'?"


duh

 

[IanC]

raw- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


why don't you check any of this out for yourself?

Here is the ACTUAL "adjusted" temperature analysis for the link you call "raw" with the ID 308860860004 comparing apples to apples, or in this case comparing adjusted and raw data from the ID ending in 4 for both cases.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

You get there for both graphs by using this link below and selecting the second pull down for your "raw" link and the third pull down for my "cleaning and homogeneity adjusted" link for the Puerto Casado station.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data Based on GHCN v2

Now admit your fellow deniers were being completely dishonest when they claim that the graph with the ID ending on 0 was the adjusted version of the raw data ending in ID 4.
And ask yourself, why does your side have to ALWAYS lie?!!!!!

all you need to do to get me to apologize profusely is to show me a graph that looks like that with data going out to 2014

Why? The link you provided as "raw" ending in ID 4 didn't go out to 2014, it went only to 2011. Why can't you admit your sources lied to you?

I am not sure how to respond to you. are we arguing over the definition of 'raw' or the definition of 'adjusted'?

GISSv2 gives an option for raw data. that is what was used as raw in the comparison. GISSv3 gives no option for raw data, only adjusted or homogenized. that is what was used as adjusted in the comparison.

the data since 2011 has been altered in such a way as to be unrecognizable by 2014. do you agree with that or not? Me and many others have pointed out that the data has been twisted far beyond what simple TOBS, station moves and equipment changes could produce. the actual thermometer readings have been put through a meat grinder and surprise, surprise hamburger came out.

you say Im lying. so show me a data set that resembles the v2 data but goes out to 2014. are you actually trying to tell people here that there have not been huge changes? just because BEST and GISS and all the rest have come up with algorithms that force the 'homogenized' temperature records to match what they want to see, that doesnt mean that those new readings have any similarity to reality.

I actually think all the raw data is still there. the problem is getting access to it

 

[skookerasbil]

Need to make one thing perfectly clear.............

Every single one of the AGW devotee's in here is also a hard core progressive!! No matter what information comes out...........NO MATTER WHAT.......they will stick to the established narrative.

Why?

Because the entire environmental movement has always been devoted to one thing and one thing only = destroy the capitalistic system. AGW has never been about the "science". Anybody with half a brain and the ability to connect the dots will see that all their shit is anything but science. The bold predictions, based upon bogus models that fAiL ALL THE TIME!! The data manipulation. The rejection of ANYTHING that does not conform with the established narrative.

Think about it......if the science is so "settled"..........why are these people always changing the dynamics within the established narrative? The continuous bomb throwing ( the latest: global warming causes volcanos to erupt ).....the rigging of the data.

Does that sound like "science" to any of you??



Sustainable development is the goal, ie: wealth redistribution.........on the backs of the middle class by the way!!!

The Green Agenda


so fucking ghey

 

[edthecynic]

I am not sure how to respond to you. are we arguing over the definition of 'raw' or the definition of 'adjusted'?

No, we are arguing over comparing two different data sets with different ID numbers. At least I am, you are desperately trying to muddy the waters rather than to admit the dishonesty in comparing data sets with different ID numbers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When dead grass/weedy fields burst into flames from spontaneous combustion we'll realize there may be some global warming happening....IF we are still alive at that point. Otherwise, we've already known those phony ass numbers have been literally CREATED from scratch by the agoreist society.

You'll notice that the holy brethren of the AGW cult never respond to threads like this one, but they'll start a parallel thread saying 2014 was the third warmest year on record..

I'll respond. You and anyone else that expects to find objective science or accurate, factual information in Breitbart is simply fooking stupid.

Caught cooking the books...again, so they blame accounting

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Need to make one thing perfectly clear.............

Every single one of the AGW devotee's in here is also a hard core progressive!! No matter what information comes out...........NO MATTER WHAT.......they will stick to the established narrative.

Why?

Because the entire environmental movement has always been devoted to one thing and one thing only = destroy the capitalistic system. AGW has never been about the "science". Anybody with half a brain and the ability to connect the dots will see that all their shit is anything but science. The bold predictions, based upon bogus models that fAiL ALL THE TIME!! The data manipulation. The rejection of ANYTHING that does not conform with the established narrative.

Think about it......if the science is so "settled"..........why are these people always changing the dynamics within the established narrative? The continuous bomb throwing ( the latest: global warming causes volcanos to erupt ).....the rigging of the data.

Does that sound like "science" to any of you??



Sustainable development is the goal, ie: wealth redistribution.........on the backs of the middle class by the way!!!

The Green Agenda


so fucking ghey

Right, that's the key. The AGWCult is brainwashed and it won't matter how many times their leaders are caught hiding the decline

 

[bripat9643]

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!!!

The sequence number doesn't mean a thing. If you go to the NASA website and look up the graph with the adjusted numbers you will get the graph with the same sequence number.

 

[IanC]

I am not sure how to respond to you. are we arguing over the definition of 'raw' or the definition of 'adjusted'?

No, we are arguing over comparing two different data sets with different ID numbers. At least I am, you are desperately trying to muddy the waters rather than to admit the dishonesty in comparing data sets with different ID numbers.

Are you saying we are comparing two different weather stations? Both graphs are from the same weather station as you can easily see by thee embedded ID number.

Are you complaining about the fact that the 2011 version is different than the 2014 version? That is the point we are trying to make!!!!!!

Would you be happier if we labeled the two graphs by the year of their origin rather than raw and adjusted? Even though the graphs themselves are from options labeled 'raw' and 'adjusted'?

 

[bripat9643]

I am not sure how to respond to you. are we arguing over the definition of 'raw' or the definition of 'adjusted'?

No, we are arguing over comparing two different data sets with different ID numbers. At least I am, you are desperately trying to muddy the waters rather than to admit the dishonesty in comparing data sets with different ID numbers.

Are you saying we are comparing two different weather stations? Both graphs are from the same weather station as you can easily see by thee embedded ID number.

Are you complaining about the fact that the 2011 version is different than the 2014 version? That is the point we are trying to make!!!!!!

Would you be happier if we labeled the two graphs by the year of their origin rather than raw and adjusted? Even though the graphs themselves are from options labeled 'raw' and 'adjusted'?

Ed is in denial. He simply can't admit to himself that the cult priests he worships have doctored the data, lied and conspired to perpetrate a giant hoax.

 

[IanC]

I am not sure how to respond to you. are we arguing over the definition of 'raw' or the definition of 'adjusted'?

No, we are arguing over comparing two different data sets with different ID numbers. At least I am, you are desperately trying to muddy the waters rather than to admit the dishonesty in comparing data sets with different ID numbers.

Are you saying we are comparing two different weather stations? Both graphs are from the same weather station as you can easily see by thee embedded ID number.

Are you complaining about the fact that the 2011 version is different than the 2014 version? That is the point we are trying to make!!!!!!

Would you be happier if we labeled the two graphs by the year of their origin rather than raw and adjusted? Even though the graphs themselves are from options labeled 'raw' and 'adjusted'?

Ed is in denial. He simply can't admit to himself that the cult priests he worships have doctored the data, lied and conspired to perpetrate a giant hoax.

I think Ed is trying to split hairs in his effort to obfuscate the substantial change in how the data is processed now compared to just three years ago.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You would think that such a change of over 2 deg C would send up red flares or flags in these peoples minds that they are being lied too. But they cant see how the forced changes these fools want to make, because of the doctored data, will affect them. They are about to find out as many of the Coal fired generation taxes hit this month. My electricity bill is set to jump 30% due to the new taxation put in place by the progressives in the last 8 years of congress..