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

[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.

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'?

At this point the dumb act just doesn't cut it! You know I never said they were two different weather stations but two different NUMBERED data sets.

You are the one claiming that the data ending in ID 0 is the adjusted version of the data ending in ID 4 and I have already shown you that there is already an adjusted version of the data set ending in ID 4 that is almost identical to the raw data ending in ID 4, and I pointed out the dishonesty in comparing a completely different data set as the adjusted data ending in ID 4.

You have already admitted you do not have the raw data ending in ID 0, so any claims that it is the same as the raw data ending in ID 4 is contradicted by the fact that they have different ID numbers. In the data where we do have both the raw and adjusted versions, the ID number does not change, but in your adjusted and raw data the ID number does change and you have no good explanation for it, other than dishonesty.

 

[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.

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.

It is hardly splitting hairs when the data sets have two DIFFERENT ID numbers, and the obfuscation is the claim that they are the same in spite of having different IDs without proof. The undeniable fact that they have 2 different ID numbers screams out that they are NOT the same data sets and should not honestly be compared to each other.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Except they both do not have the same ID number, one ends in 0 and the other ends in 4. But you may have stumbled onto something. I decided to check on what the difference was between GHCN v2 and GHCN v3 and found this:

December 14, 2011: GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (combining different station records for the same location, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc). See related figures.

 

[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.

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.

It is hardly splitting hairs when the data sets have two DIFFERENT ID numbers, and the obfuscation is the claim that they are the same in spite of having different IDs without proof. The undeniable fact that they have 2 different ID numbers screams out that they are NOT the same data sets and should not honestly be compared to each other.

Why don't you learn how to use the NASA website so you don't look like such a dumbass in denial.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

It is hardly splitting hairs when the data sets have two DIFFERENT ID numbers, and the obfuscation is the claim that they are the same in spite of having different IDs without proof. The undeniable fact that they have 2 different ID numbers screams out that they are NOT the same data sets and should not honestly be compared to each other.

Why don't you learn how to use the NASA website so you don't look like such a dumbass in denial.

I do know how to use the NASA website, I used it quire effectively to expose the lies in your OP.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It is hardly splitting hairs when the data sets have two DIFFERENT ID numbers, and the obfuscation is the claim that they are the same in spite of having different IDs without proof. The undeniable fact that they have 2 different ID numbers screams out that they are NOT the same data sets and should not honestly be compared to each other.

Why don't you learn how to use the NASA website so you don't look like such a dumbass in denial.

I do know how to use the NASA website, I used it quire effectively to expose the lies in your OP.

Apparently not. Otherwise you wouldn't be quacking so much about the differing IDs. It would be absurd to expect to different charts to have the same ID. However, both charts are for the same weather station.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

It's worse than that. He acknowledges the data was adjusted because he was told it needed adjusting to fit the failed theory

 

[edthecynic]

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.

It is hardly splitting hairs when the data sets have two DIFFERENT ID numbers, and the obfuscation is the claim that they are the same in spite of having different IDs without proof. The undeniable fact that they have 2 different ID numbers screams out that they are NOT the same data sets and should not honestly be compared to each other.

Why don't you learn how to use the NASA website so you don't look like such a dumbass in denial.

I do know how to use the NASA website, I used it quire effectively to expose the lies in your OP.

Apparently not. Otherwise you wouldn't be quacking so much about the differing IDs. It would be absurd to expect to different charts to have the same ID. However, both charts are for the same weather station.

No,if you could read you would have seen that they are from the same LOCATION, and not the same weather station as the different ID numbers prove.

I'll re-post what you ignored:

December 14, 2011: GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (combining different station records for the same location, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc). See related figures.

 

[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.

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.

It's worse than that. He acknowledges the data was adjusted because he was told it needed adjusting to fit the failed theory

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Except they both do not have the same ID number, one ends in 0 and the other ends in 4. But you may have stumbled onto something. I decided to check on what the difference was between GHCN v2 and GHCN v3 and found this:

December 14, 2011: GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (combining different station records for the same location, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc). See related figures.

Dumbass, no one said they had the same ID number. We said they are both for the same weather station. Why would two different graphs have the same ID number?

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Except they both do not have the same ID number, one ends in 0 and the other ends in 4. But you may have stumbled onto something. I decided to check on what the difference was between GHCN v2 and GHCN v3 and found this:

December 14, 2011: GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (combining different station records for the same location, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc). See related figures.

Dumbass, no one said they had the same ID number. We said they are both for the same weather station. Why would two different graphs have the same ID number?

But they are NOT from the same weather station, hence the different ID numbers, they are from the same LOCATION, Puerto Casado, but different stations.

Read this again;

December 14, 2011: GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (combining different station records for the same location, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc). See related figures.

 

[IanC]

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.

Except they both do not have the same ID number, one ends in 0 and the other ends in 4. But you may have stumbled onto something. I decided to check on what the difference was between GHCN v2 and GHCN v3 and found this:

December 14, 2011: GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (combining different station records for the same location, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc). See related figures.

Dumbass, no one said they had the same ID number. We said they are both for the same weather station. Why would two different graphs have the same ID number?

But they are NOT from the same weather station, hence the different ID numbers, they are from the same LOCATION, Puerto Casado, but different stations.

Read this again;

December 14, 2011: GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (combining different station records for the same location, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc). See related figures.

rather than bicker endlessly with Ed I will just post up two graphs with the same number

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_308860860000_0_0/station.gif , pre adjustment

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_308860860000_14_0/station.gif , post adjustment

this is actually comparing just one data series (pre) to a combined series (post) but Ed insists he wants the ID number to be exactly the same. as anyone can see the 1951-1991 portions of the two graphs are wildly different.

for comparison, here is the combined pre-adjustment graph again-

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_308860860004_1_0/station.gif . does this look more like the first graph? or the second? I'll let people decide for themselves.

 

[skookerasbil]

rigging the data is ghey

 

[Billy_Bob]

rigging the data is ghey

So is making shit up. Like they have done. but the alarmists defend this lie with vigor...

 

[jc456]

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!

badda bing!!!!!

 

[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!

Hmmmm . . . NASA is the source being used for this discussion.

 

[orogenicman]

News for the clueless and hard of hearing: BREITBART IS STILL DEAD.

 

[IanC]

WTF does Breitbart have to do with a story on how temperature history is being rewritten?

 

[IanC]

I have looked at a lot of temperature stations around the world during this last week or so. there seems to be a distinct difference between GISS in the US and GISS in the ROW (rest of the world). I dont know if it because there is such a high density of data in the US that the same changes that occur in the ROW would cause a big outcry, or if the naturally small amount of warming in the US just doesnt set off the wildly spiraling adjustments found so often elsewhere.

John Daly was very prescient in storing a lot of station data here. What the Stations Say . this info is quite similar to the GISSv2 data available up to 2011. it is wildly different to GISSv3 data that has supplanted the earlier version as can easily be checked by pulling up the latest graph (or digital data) at Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data .

Berkeley Earth data is all adjusted to match 'regional expectations', since its inception. I havent seen any station that is even 2SD away from the 'normal value'.

two years ago I quipped that Hansen was jealous that Muller had a new toy in global temp adjustments, so he just developed his own similar pairwise homogenization algorithms. it seems quite likely that is exactly what he did. other places in the world seem to be following suit and Australia and New Zealand are having a difficult time explaining to their govts why the new temps are so different from the original records. everyone seems to be acting like teenagers and saying 'everyone else is doing it too'. it is time to bring in some adults to clean up the terrible mess in temperature data collection and collation.

 

[skookerasbil]

These people.........these AGW devotee's. They are THE definition of what has become known as the"sheeple".