Global Warming or Bad Data?

Wyatt earp

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2012
69,975
16,383
2,180
Wow people are getting my main argument more and more..

New Research Suggests Some Climate Data May Be Tainted

Al Gore likes to say that the science of climate change is “settled.” But of course, science, almost by definition, is never settled.

And climate science has always suffered from the problem of shaky and missing data. Seventy percent of the globe is covered by ocean, where data is hard to collect. Reliable weather records only go back to about 1850 and, in many parts of the world, are far more recent. Modern recording weather stations date only to the early 20th century.

And many of those stations have a big problem. While they haven’t changed appreciably over the years, the land around them has changed, often profoundly, with the great growth in urban and suburban areas. The weather station that was put, say, in the middle of a Nassau County, Long Island, potato field in 1923 is still in the same spot. But the potatoes are long gone, and now it’s behind a strip mall, twenty feet from the kitchen exhaust fan of a Chinese take-out joint.

A study by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that almost 90 percent of the 1221 weather stations in the U.S. did not meet the National Weather Service’s setting standards, which requires that they be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or radiating surface. You can see some of the most egregious violators here. To deal with this defective information, climate scientists, have “adjusted” the data to solve this problem. Invariably, these adjustments have made earlier data show lower temperatures, and recent data show higher ones.
 
Excellent post, bear513, but you mention only one of the numerous problems Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists have with their theory. I believe outright deceit underlies many of their contentions such as denying the importance of variations in solar output.
 
Excellent post, bear513, but you mention only one of the numerous problems Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists have with their theory. I believe outright deceit underlies many of their contentions such as denying the importance of variations in solar output.
400px-GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png
 
I've also noticed a lot of their hypotheses rest on assumptions of complete knowledge about the complex systems they are dealing with.

I read several of the articles in another thread posted by abu afak, and it was well meaning enough, but it just struck me that what we are talking about here is something that is hugely complex.

All of the articles and links to this topic, all of these scientists talk, write, and research, put into computer models like they have this science all figured out, and there is absolutely no uncertainty or doubt about how the climate models work. It is SO unbelievable.


I remember when I was a kid. I loved, I mean, I was absolutely OBSESSED with dinosaurs. Back then? Dinosaurs dragged their tails on the ground, b/c they could not possibly carry them in the air, and the Sauropods HAD to stay bound in water b/c their weight would not allow them to roam the land. Again, the arrogance of their surety.

The complexity of THIS hypothesis is far greater, and it has been around for a much shorter time. . . .

:dunno:

. . . . and they want me to accept that they really have all the variables considered?


oh-really-tell-me-more-meme.jpg




The arrogance of humanity about what we think we know never ceases to amaze me.
 
c30d73cdaa93c8c732052dd82ae955d5--norman-rockwell-paintings-norman-rockwell-art.jpg




^ they think these records are accurate to a degree


.
 
Excellent post, bear513, but you mention only one of the numerous problems Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists have with their theory. I believe outright deceit underlies many of their contentions such as denying the importance of variations in solar output.
They deny natural variability in general.
 
Wow people are getting my main argument more and more..

New Research Suggests Some Climate Data May Be Tainted

Al Gore likes to say that the science of climate change is “settled.” But of course, science, almost by definition, is never settled.

And climate science has always suffered from the problem of shaky and missing data. Seventy percent of the globe is covered by ocean, where data is hard to collect. Reliable weather records only go back to about 1850 and, in many parts of the world, are far more recent. Modern recording weather stations date only to the early 20th century.

And many of those stations have a big problem. While they haven’t changed appreciably over the years, the land around them has changed, often profoundly, with the great growth in urban and suburban areas. The weather station that was put, say, in the middle of a Nassau County, Long Island, potato field in 1923 is still in the same spot. But the potatoes are long gone, and now it’s behind a strip mall, twenty feet from the kitchen exhaust fan of a Chinese take-out joint.

A study by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that almost 90 percent of the 1221 weather stations in the U.S. did not meet the National Weather Service’s setting standards, which requires that they be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or radiating surface. You can see some of the most egregious violators here. To deal with this defective information, climate scientists, have “adjusted” the data to solve this problem. Invariably, these adjustments have made earlier data show lower temperatures, and recent data show higher ones.





I love it...."some" :laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
What a source for climate science. To think I hadn't realised Commentary (Commentary is a monthly American magazine on religion, Judaism, and politics, as well as social and cultural issues.Wikipedia) is a science journal and that business and finance history is a climate science speciality (John Steele Gordon is an American writer who specializes in the history of business and finance.Wikipedia ).
Obviously the climate science go to of drunk idiots everywhere.
 
Last edited:
What a source for climate science. Obviously chosen by a drunk idiot.

John Steele Gordon is an American writer who specializes in the history of business and finance.More at Wikipedia






Typical fraudster, attack the messenger while ignoring his ACCURATE data.
 
What a source for climate science. Obviously chosen by a drunk idiot.

John Steele Gordon is an American writer who specializes in the history of business and finance.More at Wikipedia
Typical fraudster, attack the messenger while ignoring his ACCURATE data.
Wait just a minute there Slick, the whole point of the lies of the OP are that the data is "BAD," and deniers have no data of their own so where does this so called "ACCURATE data" come from other than out your fat ass?????
 
Typical fraudster, attack the messenger while ignoring his ACCURATE data.
Note that in the article, 'accurate' data came from the same 2nd hand source as 'inaccurate' data.

But no doubt that is to be expected from science journals like Commentary.
 
I've also noticed a lot of their hypotheses rest on assumptions of complete knowledge about the complex systems they are dealing with.

I read several of the articles in another thread posted by abu afak, and it was well meaning enough, but it just struck me that what we are talking about here is something that is hugely complex.

All of the articles and links to this topic, all of these scientists talk, write, and research, put into computer models like they have this science all figured out, and there is absolutely no uncertainty or doubt about how the climate models work. It is SO unbelievable.


I remember when I was a kid. I loved, I mean, I was absolutely OBSESSED with dinosaurs. Back then? Dinosaurs dragged their tails on the ground, b/c they could not possibly carry them in the air, and the Sauropods HAD to stay bound in water b/c their weight would not allow them to roam the land. Again, the arrogance of their surety.

The complexity of THIS hypothesis is far greater, and it has been around for a much shorter time. . . .

:dunno:

. . . . and they want me to accept that they really have all the variables considered?


oh-really-tell-me-more-meme.jpg




The arrogance of humanity about what we think we know never ceases to amaze me.
Dont put any faith in Abu Fuk Fuk's AGW models.. They fail with 100% Certainty..

certaintychannel_ipcc_reality.png


What is even more funny, they scream at the top of their lungs that the certainty of their models being right gets better over time... They are now 95% certain that were all going to die but the models are failing so badly that the empirical evidence destroys their meme, in short order, showing it failed.
 
I've also noticed a lot of their hypotheses rest on assumptions of complete knowledge about the complex systems they are dealing with.

I read several of the articles in another thread posted by abu afak, and it was well meaning enough, but it just struck me that what we are talking about here is something that is hugely complex.

All of the articles and links to this topic, all of these scientists talk, write, and research, put into computer models like they have this science all figured out, and there is absolutely no uncertainty or doubt about how the climate models work. It is SO unbelievable.


I remember when I was a kid. I loved, I mean, I was absolutely OBSESSED with dinosaurs. Back then? Dinosaurs dragged their tails on the ground, b/c they could not possibly carry them in the air, and the Sauropods HAD to stay bound in water b/c their weight would not allow them to roam the land. Again, the arrogance of their surety.

The complexity of THIS hypothesis is far greater, and it has been around for a much shorter time. . . .

:dunno:

. . . . and they want me to accept that they really have all the variables considered?


oh-really-tell-me-more-meme.jpg




The arrogance of humanity about what we think we know never ceases to amaze me.
Dont put any faith in Abu Fuk Fuk's AGW models.. They fail with 100% Certainty..

View attachment 277551

What is even more funny, they scream at the top of their lungs that the certainty of their models being right gets better over time... They are now 95% certain that were all going to die but the models are failing so badly that the empirical evidence destroys their meme, in short order, showing it failed.
dilbert-by-scott-adams-its-easy-we-start-with-the-30616125.png
 
What a source for climate science. Obviously chosen by a drunk idiot.

John Steele Gordon is an American writer who specializes in the history of business and finance.More at Wikipedia
Typical fraudster, attack the messenger while ignoring his ACCURATE data.
Wait just a minute there Slick, the whole point of the lies of the OP are that the data is "BAD," and deniers have no data of their own so where does this so called "ACCURATE data" come from other than out your fat ass?????



Cant you read?, or do think the southern hemisphere is only 40 years old?
 

Forum List

Back
Top