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

[IanC]

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

No offense intended but I see the majority of both sides of the debate here more focused on the politics of AGW rather than the science behind it. Skeptics may indeed succeed in changing the paradigm but it should be the science that causes it, not how effectively we can call the other side names.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lets face it.........we have gotten to a time in our history where progressives will do anything to promote their agenda. No lie is too big anymore for these people.

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

No offense intended but I see the majority of both sides of the debate here more focused on the politics of AGW rather than the science behind it. Skeptics may indeed succeed in changing the paradigm but it should be the science that causes it, not how effectively we can call the other side names.

Ian my friend.........heres the thing. As Ive pointed out in this forum a million times, its always going to be about the politics. Progressives had this locked up in the early 2000's and, as usual, did the overreach stunt with the draconian predictions and lost the public trust. People have tuned this stuff out.........the spectacular failure of Crap and Tax was the death knell. You cant base the future of America's economy on computer models. Too.......without massive subsidies, renewable energy dies.

The whole science debate will continue........but at least for the next few decades, it will be akin to a hobby for internet users. There will be zero significant impact on public policy and that is a great thing for all of us.( non-k00ks ).

Lastly.....the public is NEVER going to be moved by computer model predictions that back up the climate nutter predictions. That's well established by now. When people in Alaska are waterskiing in bikini's on lakes in mid-January, then the debate will get out of the realm of internet banter.. Thats not flip........that's the way it is.

 

[JoeNormal]

Just remember this whenever you see some AGW cultist claiming 2014 was the Nth warmest year on record:

Forget Climategate this global warming scandal is much bigger - Breitbart

Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world’s leading global warming experts – say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State – and they studied your records for a moment and said: “This isn’t right.” What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.

You’d be gobsmacked, would you not?

Yet, incredible though it may seem, the scenario I’ve just described is more or less exactly analogous to what has happened to the raw data from weather stations all over the world.

Take the ones in Paraguay – a part of the world which contributed heavily to NASA GISS’s recent narrative about 2014 having been the “hottest year on record.”

If it wasn’t for the diligence of amateur investigators like retired accountant Paul Homewood, probably no one would care, not even Paraguayans, what has been going on with the Paraguayan temperature records. But Homewood has done his homework and here, revealed at his site Notalotofpeopleknowthat, is what he found.

He began by examining Paraguay’s only three genuinely rural weather stations. (ie the ones least likely to have had their readings affected over the years by urban development.)

All three – at least in the versions used by NASA GISS for their “hottest year on record” claim – show a “clear and steady” upward (warming) trend since the 1950s, with 2014 shown as the hottest year at one of the sites, Puerto Casado.

Judging by this chart all is clear: it’s getting hotter in Paraguay, just like it is everywhere else in the world.



Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

But wait. How did the Puerto Casado chart look before the temperature data was adjusted? Rather different as you see here:



Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Perhaps, though, Puerto Casada was an anomaly?

Nope. Similar adjustments, in the same direction, appear to have been made to the two other rural sites.







Ah. But there was surely some innocent explanation for this, Homewood surmised. Perhaps the rural stations were wildly out of kilter with the urban stations and had been ‘homogenised’ accordingly.

Except, guess what?

OK. So why am I making you look at all these charts? Because seeing is believing.​

Maybe you can explain where the unadjusted data came from. I looked at the Puerto Casado data from the NASA GISS site.

There are 3 different data sets they offer:
1) GHCN v3 (adj) + SCAR data
2) after removing suspicious records
3) after GISS homogeneity adjustment

They are looked very similar, they all displayed an upward trend, and none looked like the supposed raw data you showed. How did that happen?

 

[IanC]

Just remember this whenever you see some AGW cultist claiming 2014 was the Nth warmest year on record:

Forget Climategate this global warming scandal is much bigger - Breitbart

Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world’s leading global warming experts – say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State – and they studied your records for a moment and said: “This isn’t right.” What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.

You’d be gobsmacked, would you not?

Yet, incredible though it may seem, the scenario I’ve just described is more or less exactly analogous to what has happened to the raw data from weather stations all over the world.

Take the ones in Paraguay – a part of the world which contributed heavily to NASA GISS’s recent narrative about 2014 having been the “hottest year on record.”

If it wasn’t for the diligence of amateur investigators like retired accountant Paul Homewood, probably no one would care, not even Paraguayans, what has been going on with the Paraguayan temperature records. But Homewood has done his homework and here, revealed at his site Notalotofpeopleknowthat, is what he found.

He began by examining Paraguay’s only three genuinely rural weather stations. (ie the ones least likely to have had their readings affected over the years by urban development.)

All three – at least in the versions used by NASA GISS for their “hottest year on record” claim – show a “clear and steady” upward (warming) trend since the 1950s, with 2014 shown as the hottest year at one of the sites, Puerto Casado.

Judging by this chart all is clear: it’s getting hotter in Paraguay, just like it is everywhere else in the world.



Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

But wait. How did the Puerto Casado chart look before the temperature data was adjusted? Rather different as you see here:



Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Perhaps, though, Puerto Casada was an anomaly?

Nope. Similar adjustments, in the same direction, appear to have been made to the two other rural sites.







Ah. But there was surely some innocent explanation for this, Homewood surmised. Perhaps the rural stations were wildly out of kilter with the urban stations and had been ‘homogenised’ accordingly.

Except, guess what?

OK. So why am I making you look at all these charts? Because seeing is believing.​

Maybe you can explain where the unadjusted data came from. I looked at the Puerto Casado data from the NASA GISS site.

There are 3 different data sets they offer:
1) GHCN v3 (adj) + SCAR data
2) after removing suspicious records
3) after GISS homogeneity adjustment

They are looked very similar, they all displayed an upward trend, and none looked like the supposed raw data you showed. How did that happen?

Sure, no problem Joe. When you go to the GISS station selector, look for the the three small graphs and just under them is the line-

In response to various requests, we also provide access to the last release of the GHCN version 2 data; note that these data end in October 2011 and NCDC does not intend to extend or update the version 2 data.

click on the version 2 data and you will get the same type of page but the pull down menu will be different. you can choose between raw, combined or homogenized (homogenized in a much less drastic fashion). this data up to 2011 is usually considerably different than version 3 data.


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

 

[elektra]

and the scandal gets bigger

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

 

[jc456]

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

No offense intended but I see the majority of both sides of the debate here more focused on the politics of AGW rather than the science behind it. Skeptics may indeed succeed in changing the paradigm but it should be the science that causes it, not how effectively we can call the other side names.

Ian, me being on the skeptic side of things, I have but one scientific question that I cannot get answered. Until that one question is answered, any other discussion becomes purely political because the warmers cannot produce one scientific confirmation that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to climate. None. It is mathematically impossible based on the gas characteristics. I don't need to take the discussion any other place until that one experiment is produced. That's it. I don't need to be a scientist, just a concerned human and US Citizen. The rest of the discussion is purely the left politicizing it. Not me.

Then of course there are the posts you've provided to detail the altered data sets from observed events and yet, the left continues. Again, I'm not trying to be a total arse, but I mean, let's call a spade a spade. The fact is the left is the cause period, and the contributing presence of everything nonscientific. Political and name calling. Answer me this, why can't any of them debate thier claims civilly? Why is Robert Kennedy out there blasting people for thinking differently. I ask someone to show me a similar video from the skeptic's side. Just one. And, Robert Jr. is not the only one on the left.

The religion is the religion based on the left warmers end of story!!!

 

[Wyld Kard]

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.

And you and any other nutjob that expects to find real science or accurate, factual information from the IPCC is simply fucking stupid.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

How about addressing the OP.

Westy, what's to address??? You want us to refute a shitload of charts that we can't possibly even begin to understand? All this nonsense based on what Paraguay has submitted?

I'll address it, the world IS getting warmer; no, I don't believe that man has caused it.

Anyone that believes that the Earth is NOT getting warmer is an idiot.

 

[westwall]

How about addressing the OP.

Westy, what's to address??? You want us to refute a shitload of charts that we can't possibly even begin to understand? All this nonsense based on what Paraguay has submitted?

I'll address it, the world IS getting warmer; no, I don't believe that man has caused it.

Anyone that believes that the Earth is NOT getting warmer is an idiot.

M C once again, no one disagrees that the planet has gotten warmer. It's been doing that for 14,000 years. The question is man's impact on that warming. The data shows that the theory of CO2 driving global temps has failed. That means that the support for man having any effect whatsoever has likewise failed. What the charts show is a systemic, and fraudulent, adjustment of the historical temperature records to hide the fact that my statement is true.

 

[edthecynic]

 

[westwall]

Yes, this little propaganda piece has been posted before, and you little climate faithful will always lap it up like the little puppies you are.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, this little propaganda piece has been posted before, and you little climate faithful will always lap it up like the little puppies you are.

Yeah, every time you deniers are caught in your fake conspiracies with no evidence it must be propaganda on everyone else's part, it couldn't be you gullible SUCKERS lapping up the BS.

 

[westwall]

Yes, this little propaganda piece has been posted before, and you little climate faithful will always lap it up like the little puppies you are.

Yeah, every time you deniers are caught in your fake conspiracies with no evidence it must be propaganda on everyone else's part, it couldn't be you gullible SUCKERS lapping up the BS.

"Fake" conspiracy? The climate faithful are pretty bold in their fraud. They're not trying to hide anything at all. They are quite blatant and relying on the collective blindness of you all to get away with it.

 

[orogenicman]

Speaking of conspiracies, shouldn't this thread be moved to the conspiracy theories forum? It seems to have been misplaced.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, this little propaganda piece has been posted before, and you little climate faithful will always lap it up like the little puppies you are.

Yeah, every time you deniers are caught in your fake conspiracies with no evidence it must be propaganda on everyone else's part, it couldn't be you gullible SUCKERS lapping up the BS.

"Fake" conspiracy? The climate faithful are pretty bold in their fraud. They're not trying to hide anything at all. They are quite blatant and relying on the collective blindness of you all to get away with it.

The only climate fraud was done by deniers Spencer and Christy at UAH. Based on their fradulent satellite data, deniers have accused all the honest scientists of fraud when the honest data did not match Christy and Spencer's cooked numbers. After the two frauds were caught, the deniers simply doubled down on their fake conspiracy accusations.

 

[westwall]

Yes, this little propaganda piece has been posted before, and you little climate faithful will always lap it up like the little puppies you are.

Yeah, every time you deniers are caught in your fake conspiracies with no evidence it must be propaganda on everyone else's part, it couldn't be you gullible SUCKERS lapping up the BS.

"Fake" conspiracy? The climate faithful are pretty bold in their fraud. They're not trying to hide anything at all. They are quite blatant and relying on the collective blindness of you all to get away with it.

The only climate fraud was done by deniers Spencer and Christy at UAH. Based on their fradulent satellite data, deniers have accused all the honest scientists of fraud when the honest data did not match Christy and Spencer's cooked numbers. After the two frauds were caught, the deniers simply doubled down on their fake conspiracy accusations.

Then why do the climate faithful only start their Arctic ice record in 1979 instead of 1970 when it was being well documented?

 

[orogenicman]

Yes, this little propaganda piece has been posted before, and you little climate faithful will always lap it up like the little puppies you are.

Yeah, every time you deniers are caught in your fake conspiracies with no evidence it must be propaganda on everyone else's part, it couldn't be you gullible SUCKERS lapping up the BS.

"Fake" conspiracy? The climate faithful are pretty bold in their fraud. They're not trying to hide anything at all. They are quite blatant and relying on the collective blindness of you all to get away with it.

The only climate fraud was done by deniers Spencer and Christy at UAH. Based on their fradulent satellite data, deniers have accused all the honest scientists of fraud when the honest data did not match Christy and Spencer's cooked numbers. After the two frauds were caught, the deniers simply doubled down on their fake conspiracy accusations.

Then why do the climate faithful only start their Arctic ice record in 1979 instead of 1970 when it was being well documented?

Erm, the arctic record goes back further than 1970. You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[IanC]

The term 'conspiracy theory' has morphed into a new meaning. Now it means I disagree with what you say but I cannot rebut it so I will just belittle the idea in hopes that it will go away.

How could using the same raw(ish) data to point out the drastic change in adjustments be considered a conspiracy theory?

Are any of the warmists actually denying the information still actually posted on govt web sites? Does no one realize that replacing actual temp readings with 'expected readings' just leaves you with made up readings? Does no one realize that chopping up data series into pieces and reorganizing them to fit 'expectations' removes the underlying climate(30 year) signal?

 

[edthecynic]

The term 'conspiracy theory' has morphed into a new meaning. Now it means I disagree with what you say but I cannot rebut it so I will just belittle the idea in hopes that it will go away.

How could using the same raw(ish) data to point out the drastic change in adjustments be considered a conspiracy theory?

Are any of the warmists actually denying the information still actually posted on govt web sites? Does no one realize that replacing actual temp readings with 'expected readings' just leaves you with made up readings? Does no one realize that chopping up data series into pieces and reorganizing them to fit 'expectations' removes the underlying climate(30 year) signal?

Does anyone other than deniers believe that UNCALIBRATED raw data is credible?
The fact that deniers have ONLY error prone data to cling to shows their complete desperation.

 

[IanC]

The term 'conspiracy theory' has morphed into a new meaning. Now it means I disagree with what you say but I cannot rebut it so I will just belittle the idea in hopes that it will go away.

How could using the same raw(ish) data to point out the drastic change in adjustments be considered a conspiracy theory?

Are any of the warmists actually denying the information still actually posted on govt web sites? Does no one realize that replacing actual temp readings with 'expected readings' just leaves you with made up readings? Does no one realize that chopping up data series into pieces and reorganizing them to fit 'expectations' removes the underlying climate(30 year) signal?

Does anyone other than deniers believe that UNCALIBRATED raw data is credible?
The fact that deniers have ONLY error prone data to cling to shows their complete desperation.

So you are saying that GISS version 2 was garbage, that we only found out how to to analyze temperature in 2011? What we have been calling 'raw' data was still cleaned and processed according to version 2.