'Polar vortex' set to bring dangerous, record-breaking cold

[Old Rocks]

Georgia is a subtropical climate. To have this kind of weather when we normally have very mild if not warm winters is abnormal. Its supposed to hit single digits this week. The last time it hit single digits down here was when I was 12 years old.

Georgia, -17, CCC Camp F-16, Jan. 27, 1940

Montana, -70, Rogers Pass, Jan. 20, 1954

Louisiana, -16, Minden, Feb. 13, 1899

Yep, folks, it has been cold before. And the northern states have seen 'blue northers' before.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Bowie, you are so full of shit. Why don't you just come out and say that you believe millions of scientists from every political system and nation in the world are in on a grand cospriracy to try to fool all of the rest of us. Need any more aluminum foil for your hats?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Hey Bowie, you are so full of shit. Why don't you just come out and say that you believe millions of scientists from every political system and nation in the world are in on a grand cospriracy to try to fool all of the rest of us. Need any more aluminum foil for your hats?

Millions of scientists? Are they reproducing like fruit flies?

 

[Asclepias]

And yet, the idiots still deny global climate change.

Seriously, how can people be so damn dumb?

Climate Name Change

Climate Name Change - YouTube

I dont think they understand exactly what global warming entails. They are taking what intelligent people use as a joke and thinking its proof there is not global warming. They even had a movie explaining what it meant. I forgot what it was called but most of the US was in an ice age.

 

[NoNukes]

'Polar vortex' set to bring dangerous, record-breaking cold to much of US | Fox News



That godam Global Warming!

You are still too stupid to understand, and proud enough to begin a thread displaying your ignorance.

I understand climate change perfectly; it is a scam based on faked data to get funding by various scientists and empower the government and themselves to be little tyrants.

That about sums it up exactly.

Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science

Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

◾FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented.

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations

...


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is.

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'


.....


; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

...

The extreme weather that you are posting about is an example of climate change. Go ahead and live in denial until it is too late.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hey Bowie, you are so full of shit. Why don't you just come out and say that you believe millions of scientists from every political system and nation in the world are in on a grand cospriracy to try to fool all of the rest of us. Need any more aluminum foil for your hats?

Lol, like that has never happened before?

For centuries most astronomers 'knew' the Earth was flat.

In the 1930s there was a huge consensus among scientists that human beings could be improved through eugenics. The same kind of authority based claims were made to support that outrageous nonsense.

Science is not about consensus but about provable FACT.

And it is a fact that you do not think like a scientist should, whether you get paid for you malfeasance or not.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are still too stupid to understand, and proud enough to begin a thread displaying your ignorance.

I understand climate change perfectly; it is a scam based on faked data to get funding by various scientists and empower the government and themselves to be little tyrants.

That about sums it up exactly.

Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science

Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

◾FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented.

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations

...


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is.

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'


.....


; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

...

The extreme weather that you are posting about is an example of climate change. Go ahead and live in denial until it is too late.

So it is news to you that climate changes?

It might also shock you to know that I agree that climate changes, and that our planet warmed for the most recent nearly two centuries.

But I do not believe it has been proven that mankind is the primary cause of it, though we may be 'helping it along' some.

You fanatics wont take anything short of 100% complete agreement or else we are deniers, pawns of the fossil fuel industry, etc. And your outrage that anyone would dare verify your claims, your data, your software models is indicative that you folks are not being honest, to say the least.

The AGW elites are ideologues intent on bending science to meet their ideology, and that is not science, not at all.

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

And yet, the idiots still deny global climate change.

Seriously, how can people be so damn dumb?

Climate Name Change

Climate Name Change - YouTube

I dont think they understand exactly what global warming entails. They are taking what intelligent people use as a joke and thinking its proof there is not global warming. They even had a movie explaining what it meant. I forgot what it was called but most of the US was in an ice age.

Lol, you have no idea what the skeptics think because you don't listen to the skeptics.

You are too arrogant and full of shyte.

 

[Abraham3]

...

What do you think "Hide the Decline" means? Do YOU know of any data suggesting a global temperature decline began in 1960? If not, what is is that you think they are hiding?

I think it was completely intentional that the actual code was deleted, leaving only the comments as it becomes much less clear that the data being processed are tree ring widths.

From Wikipedia's article on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy:

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

References

32) Pearce, Fred (9 February 2010). "Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies". The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 20 March 2010.
33) Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science." The New York Times. 1 December 2009.
34) Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 26 July 2010.
35) Foley, Henry C.; Alan W. Scaroni and Candice A. Yekel (3 February 2010). "RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University". The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved 7 February 2010.
36) "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. pp. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October 2010.

BTW Jim, laws stating you will spend time in prison if you don't pay your taxes is not extortion by threat of violence. It's the rule of law.

 

[Pennywise]

And the climate changes with such massive events because we drive cars?

Still waiting for someone out there who is soooo much smarter than the rest of us, to tell us what the correct temperature and weather patterns are for the planet earth.

They call us "flat-earthers" but it is they who use benchmarks of a couple thousand years as to what is "normal", when the earth is millions of years old. Gee, sounds almost as nutty as the young earth christians.

 

[JimBowie1958]

...

What do you think "Hide the Decline" means? Do YOU know of any data suggesting a global temperature decline began in 1960? If not, what is is that you think they are hiding?

The proxy tree ring data was showing a continuing decline in temperatures right on through the hottest period of the warming of the last century.

Which doesn't suggest that things were in fact cooler, but that their tree ring proxy data is fundamentally flawed. If their proxy techniques do not correspond to readily observable FACT, then that technique should be modified till it does correspond. You don't simply omit it.

It also shows rank hypocrisy and poor science methodology.

I think it was completely intentional that the actual code was deleted, leaving only the comments as it becomes much less clear that the data being processed are tree ring widths.

You mean code like this?

Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

From Wikipedia's article on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy:

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high

Again, this is not intended as proof the temps were not rising but that the contrasting previous temps obtained by the proxy tree ring data was horse manure.

The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

Yeah, they themselves called it hiding when they weren't really hiding anything, lol.

roflmao, you just cant make this shit up.

Dude, if you are that easily misled, then I pity you. These loons were using one set of data when it showed what they wanted then replaced it with a different data set to show what they wanted for those years.

If that is honest scientific analysis in your opinion, then I cannot remedy your affliction.

BTW Jim, laws stating you will spend time in prison if you don't pay your taxes is not extortion by threat of violence. It's the rule of law.

So if thieves took over our government and passed laws that said you pay them 90% of your income, that would be the rule of law in your opinion? Extorting money with the threat of incarceration is OK if the government is doing it because...they have the magic fairly dust or what? Because of a myth that a Lady in a Lake gave some dude a sword millennia ago?

Yes, you are an idiot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...

What do you think "Hide the Decline" means? Do YOU know of any data suggesting a global temperature decline began in 1960? If not, what is is that you think they are hiding?

The proxy tree ring data was showing a continuing decline in temperatures right on through the hottest period of the warming of the last century.

Which doesn't suggest that things were in fact cooler, but that their tree ring proxy data is fundamentally flawed. If their proxy techniques do not correspond to readily observable FACT, then that technique should be modified till it does correspond. You don't simply omit it.

It also shows rank hypocrisy and poor science methodology.



You mean code like this?

Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?



So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.





Again, this is not intended as proof the temps were not rising but that the contrasting previous temps obtained by the proxy tree ring data was horse manure.

The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

Yeah, they themselves called it hiding when they weren't really hiding anything, lol.

roflmao, you just cant make this shit up.

Dude, if you are that easily misled, then I pity you. These loons were using one set of data when it showed what they wanted then replaced it with a different data set to show what they wanted for those years.

If that is honest scientific analysis in your opinion, then I cannot remedy your affliction.

BTW Jim, laws stating you will spend time in prison if you don't pay your taxes is not extortion by threat of violence. It's the rule of law.

So if thieves took over our government and passed laws that said you pay them 90% of your income, that would be the rule of law in your opinion? Extorting money with the threat of incarceration is OK if the government is doing it because...they have the magic fairly dust or what? Because of a myth that a Lady in a Lake gave some dude a sword millennia ago?

Yes, you are an idiot.

That's what happens with a classic cult, it doesn't matter if they cooked the data, the true believers like Abraham MUST BELIEVE

 

[Freewill]

And yet, the idiots still deny global climate change.

Seriously, how can people be so damn dumb?

]

Reductio ad absurdum

There is no increase in storms.

There is no increase in the intensity of storms.

This video just is more liberal fearism.

 

[Abraham3]

What do you think "Hide the Decline" means? Do YOU know of any data suggesting a global temperature decline began in 1960? If not, what is is that you think they are hiding?

The proxy tree ring data was showing a continuing decline in temperatures right on through the hottest period of the warming of the last century. Which doesn't suggest that things were in fact cooler, but that their tree ring proxy data is fundamentally flawed.

Correct. The instrumented temperature records show the world heating rapidly. So the problem was that the correlation factors between tree ring widths and temperatures changed at this point in time. It was NOT a decline in temperatures. It's good to meet a denier who comprehends that point.

If their proxy techniques do not correspond to readily observable FACT, then that technique should be modified till it does correspond. You don't simply omit it.

Oh well.

They didn't omit it, they adjusted the data. That's what all that code does.

It also shows rank hypocrisy and poor science methodology.

It shows neither.

You mean code like this?
[code omitted]
So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.
Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?
Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

You make the assumption that these adjustments weren't justified. I can't see that you (or WUWT) has made any attempt to discover if such justification was valid or has simply rejected justification out of hand.

I don't start with the presupposition that climate scientists are evil, conspiring liars. You do. As you said before, that's not good science.

Again, this is not intended as proof the temps were not rising but that the contrasting previous temps obtained by the proxy tree ring data was horse manure.

How would you calibrate proxy data against instrumented temperature records Jim?

The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

Yeah, they themselves called it hiding when they weren't really hiding anything, lol.

The EPA and the rest of the world's dendrochronologists all agree with Mann and Jones as to the meaning, intent and validity of "hide the decline" and all these other adjustments to their data. You, however, assume they are all lying. Right?

roflmao, you just cant make this shit up.

If you start out with unwarranted bias and presuppositions, ignore real evidence while taking meaningless trivia as unforced confessions, you most certainly can make this shit up. You and WUWT just did.

Dude, if you are that easily misled, then I pity you.

You are that easily misled and I view it as your personal failing.

BTW Jim, laws stating you will spend time in prison if you don't pay your taxes is not extortion by threat of violence. It's the rule of law.

So if thieves took over our government and passed laws that said you pay them 90% of your income, that would be the rule of law in your opinion? Extorting money with the threat of incarceration is OK if the government is doing it because...they have the magic fairly dust or what? Because of a myth that a Lady in a Lake gave some dude a sword millennia ago?
[/quote]

But thieves HAVEN'T taken over our government. Those laws were passed by our elected representatives. That violating laws gets you punished is how the Rule of Law works. Your problem doesn't seem to be with taxation, it seems to be more with democracy. Let me guess: the rest of the country just doesn't see things the way you do. Yeah? What a surprise.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Amen. If it gets too much warmer people are gonna start freezing to death!

it is already happening

the cold is very hard on people

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And yet, the idiots still deny global climate change.

Seriously, how can people be so damn dumb?

Climate Name Change

Climate Name Change - YouTube

So when the new name change doesn't work to fit your agenda what will it be changed too?
"Gawd this weather is freaking crazy change"

 

[jon_berzerk]

well they say

when you get lemons make lemonade

a fun experiment

you can do with the kiddies or grand kiddies

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fChrZRqNnII]Boiling water freezing in one second outdoors in Cold Norway - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

And the climate changes with such massive events because we drive cars?

Still waiting for someone out there who is soooo much smarter than the rest of us, to tell us what the correct temperature and weather patterns are for the planet earth.

They call us "flat-earthers" but it is they who use benchmarks of a couple thousand years as to what is "normal", when the earth is millions of years old. Gee, sounds almost as nutty as the young earth christians.

Because of driving our cars burning fossil fuels, burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, and increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%.

The correct temperature and weather pattern is the one that has allowed us to have 7 billion people on this planet without major starvation. Change that pattern, and it is changing, and there is a very large potential for catastrophe.

You fools are the 'flat-earthers'. You refuse to accept scientific evedence from all over the world because it conflicts with your vision of the 'way things oughter be'. And, were you to actually read the articles in peer reviewed scientific journals, you would see articles on paleoclimotology on times scales varying from 100s to billions of years. But you do not read science. Instead, you listen to obese junkies on the radio, and blindly accept what a fake British lord spews.

 

[Old Rocks]

Amen. If it gets too much warmer people are gonna start freezing to death!

it is already happening

the cold is very hard on people

So, in the continental US we might get as many as 70 deaths from this storm. Bad cess, but does not even begin to compare to this;

2003 European heat wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 2003 European heat wave was the hottest summer on record in Europe since at least 1540.[1] France was hit especially hard. The heat wave led to health crises in several countries and combined with drought to create a crop shortfall in parts of Southern Europe. Peer reviewed analysis places the European death toll at 70,000.[2]

 

[JimBowie1958]

What do you think "Hide the Decline" means? Do YOU know of any data suggesting a global temperature decline began in 1960? If not, what is is that you think they are hiding?

The proxy tree ring data was showing a continuing decline in temperatures right on through the hottest period of the warming of the last century. Which doesn't suggest that things were in fact cooler, but that their tree ring proxy data is fundamentally flawed.

Correct. The instrumented temperature records show the world heating rapidly. So the problem was that the correlation factors between tree ring widths and temperatures changed at this point in time. It was NOT a decline in temperatures. It's good to meet a denier who comprehends that point.

I am not a denier, I am an advocate of GOOD science.

Oh well.

They didn't omit it, they adjusted the data. That's what all that code does.

That is a flagrant lie, they even admit that they dropped the tree ring proxy data after 1960 and replaced it with actual direct measurements. You have just demonstrated that are a liar.

You make the assumption that these adjustments weren't justified.

Good science methodology does not fudge data, it does not hide it because it is not the range of values wanted.

You would know that if you were an honest scientist, or even just familiar with the topic.

So if thieves took over our government and passed laws that said you pay them 90% of your income, that would be the rule of law in your opinion? Extorting money with the threat of incarceration is OK if the government is doing it because...they have the magic fairly dust or what? Because of a myth that a Lady in a Lake gave some dude a sword millennia ago?

But thieves HAVEN'T taken over our government. Those laws were passed by our elected representatives. That violating laws gets you punished is how the Rule of Law works. Your problem doesn't seem to be with taxation, it seems to be more with democracy. Let me guess: the rest of the country just doesn't see things the way you do. Yeah? What a surprise.

Oh, but they have, and they have been looting the national currency at the rate of $85 billion a month, but idiots like you think it OK because they give it a clean name 'Quantitative Easing' chosen to glaze eyeballs in a heart beat.

It is theft, pure and simple, as is forcing you to pay taxes under threat of incarceration and deadly force.

You fucking liar.