The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
22,876
Reaction score
5,518
Points
280
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

Added to the above are these questions.

Why was 12.5% of the Earth's land mass NOT included in the 60 years of temperature readings?
When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

Why did NOAA remove 600 weather stations?
Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
* In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic.
Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News
Scientists Using Selective Temperature Data Skeptics Say Global Climate Scam

Finally WHY is a BRUTALLY COLD 2014-15 WINTER SHAPING UP FOR THE UNITED STATES?

Brutally Cold 2014-15 Winter Shaping Up For The United States
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
120,058
Reaction score
34,850
Points
2,220
Brian Williams needs to be the spokesperson for the AGWCult
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
47,997
Reaction score
11,600
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
M-M global warming is a religion, not a science. In order to get to the Promised Land you have to have faith in the dogma. When you are up to your ass in snow you have to believe that it is really getting warmer. Anybody who disbelieves the dogma is called names similar to "heretic". The high priest of global warming, Al Gore is a hypocrite with no science background. Back in the day the data was collected by personal observation and instruments no more technical than swinging a thermometer on a string. Today there are professors in universities who owe their Lexus and Prius cars to lavish taxpayer funded grants. Anybody think colleges are going to disprove man made global warming when they are paid to come up with G.W. propaganda? A little glitch in computer data and sensors placed on black asphalt parking lots in the summer and presto, another year of lavish federal grants and endless propaganda.
 

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
Christopher Booker - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Booker's (who has worked with the heartland Institute in the recent past) position requires the reader to believe that 1) Most of the world's climate scientists, for reasons unspecified, decided to create a myth about human-induced global warming and have managed to twist endless measurements and computer models to fit their case, without the rest of the scientific community noticing. George W Bush and certain oil companies have, however, seen through the deception. 2) Most of the world's climate scientists are incompetent and have grossly misinterpreted their data and models, yet their faulty conclusions are not, as you might imagine, a random chaos of assertions, but all point in the same direction.
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,649
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
Christopher Booker - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Booker's (who has worked with the heartland Institute in the recent past) position requires the reader to believe that 1) Most of the world's climate scientists, for reasons unspecified, decided to create a myth about human-induced global warming and have managed to twist endless measurements and computer models to fit their case, without the rest of the scientific community noticing. George W Bush and certain oil companies have, however, seen through the deception. 2) Most of the world's climate scientists are incompetent and have grossly misinterpreted their data and models, yet their faulty conclusions are not, as you might imagine, a random chaos of assertions, but all point in the same direction.
Yes the AGW cult needs to discredit anyone that speaks out against their religion, we know this..
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
120,058
Reaction score
34,850
Points
2,220
Christopher Booker - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Booker's (who has worked with the heartland Institute in the recent past) position requires the reader to believe that 1) Most of the world's climate scientists, for reasons unspecified, decided to create a myth about human-induced global warming and have managed to twist endless measurements and computer models to fit their case, without the rest of the scientific community noticing. George W Bush and certain oil companies have, however, seen through the deception. 2) Most of the world's climate scientists are incompetent and have grossly misinterpreted their data and models, yet their faulty conclusions are not, as you might imagine, a random chaos of assertions, but all point in the same direction.
Predicted Cult response, attack the DENIER!!!! and never deal with the science
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,090
Reaction score
6,239
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
In case others didn't know, the Frank-thing is widely considered to be a defective computer program which has been programmed to autosulk at everyone.

Deniers in general have a problem. All the data keeps contradicting every deranged claim their cult makes. That's why they've stopped talking about science, and now just shriek that all the data is fraudulent. There's a VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy, you know, and only these few brave deneir patriots understand the RealTruth.

With very few exceptions, every denier is a proud member of the right-wing-fringe extremist cult. Denialism is a purely political movement. Denialism isn't the actual cult; denialism is just one of many politically correct kook beliefs that the right-wing-fringe cultists are commanded to repeat.

In contrast, the rational people represent all political beliefs all across the planet. That's because global warming science is science, not politics.
 

Katzndogz

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
65,656
Reaction score
7,478
Points
1,830
Global warming is science. Just adjusted science.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,090
Reaction score
6,239
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
A denier died and approached the pearly gates. Saint Peter says "Welcome. All of our heavenly services are available to you, including the getting the godly-approved answer to any questions you'd like to ask."

The denier says "At last I can learn the truth! Who was the mastermind behind the global warming hoax?".

Saint Peter replies "There was no hoax. You were just mistaken."

The denier pauses a bit, and then proclaims "Clearly, the conspiracy runs even deeper than I thought!".
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
22,876
Reaction score
5,518
Points
280
In case others didn't know, the Frank-thing is widely considered to be a defective computer program which has been programmed to autosulk at everyone.

Deniers in general have a problem. All the data keeps contradicting every deranged claim their cult makes. That's why they've stopped talking about science, and now just shriek that all the data is fraudulent. There's a VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy, you know, and only these few brave deneir patriots understand the RealTruth.

With very few exceptions, every denier is a proud member of the right-wing-fringe extremist cult. Denialism is a purely political movement. Denialism isn't the actual cult; denialism is just one of many politically correct kook beliefs that the right-wing-fringe cultists are commanded to repeat.

In contrast, the rational people represent all political beliefs all across the planet. That's because global warming science is science, not politics.
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
what is science - Google Search
Two points the definition requires that this latest global warming critic shows is missing are:
1) Observation...
If a "scientist" observes structure and behavior of temperature changes.... OF THE GLOBE... then temperature readings must be
A) Accurate... which prior to digital devices depended on humans reading the difference in minor degrees i.e. 1° to 2 ° degrees and then hand writing the results.
Both functions i.e. reading and transcribing are susceptible to errors.
B) Global range... i.e. why would 12.5% of Earth's land mass NOT be used? Not one global warming evangelista has disputed the following:
When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

In summary then GW "science" that is based on skewed data collection i.e. 12.5% of land mass NOT included, based on human error and then we find the data has been manipulated is definitely to be questioned.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,433
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
OK, here is the problem for the deniars. What they are claiming is that all the scientific establishments in the whole world, every nation, every culture, every political system, are in on a vast conspriracy. Millions and millions of scientists willingly going along with the conspiracy.

You see, every single Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major University have policy statements that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

So, who are we to believe, the scientists who have spent large portions of their lives learning to do science, or people like Lord Monkton, who is not a Lord, has no scientific credentials whatsoever, and has repeatedly been shown to be a liar. Our deniars here have a love for the fakes, as opposed to respect for those that actually do science.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
22,876
Reaction score
5,518
Points
280
OK, here is the problem for the deniars. What they are claiming is that all the scientific establishments in the whole world, every nation, every culture, every political system, are in on a vast conspriracy. Millions and millions of scientists willingly going along with the conspiracy.

You see, every single Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major University have policy statements that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

So, who are we to believe, the scientists who have spent large portions of their lives learning to do science, or people like Lord Monkton, who is not a Lord, has no scientific credentials whatsoever, and has repeatedly been shown to be a liar. Our deniars here have a love for the fakes, as opposed to respect for those that actually do science.
Tell you who I believe is the simple fact that I am not a scientist BUT I have enough common sense to know if you excluded 12.5% of the Earth's land mass for 60 years of temperature readings THERE will be a bias!

Please show why this would NOT alter the temperatures.

Global range... i.e. why would 12.5% of Earth's land mass NOT be used? Not one global warming evangelista has disputed the following:
When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,433
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Since several satellites from differant nations are right now viewing the earth and reporting everything from CO2 and CH4 levels to ocean temperatures, as well as many other factors, such as water vapor, I would say that we do have global coverage. And all are reporting the same thing, that the earth is warming, and climate is getting more chaotic.

But, the denial factory, since the solution to the problem endangers the continued super wealth of some of the 1%, will continue to recieve their paychecks to publish lies about what the scientists are doing and seeing.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
22,876
Reaction score
5,518
Points
280
Tell me why we should believe temperature recordings when
Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
* In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic.

Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News
Scientists Using Selective Temperature Data Skeptics Say Global Climate Scam
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
22,876
Reaction score
5,518
Points
280
Since several satellites from differant nations are right now viewing the earth and reporting everything from CO2 and CH4 levels to ocean temperatures, as well as many other factors, such as water vapor, I would say that we do have global coverage. And all are reporting the same thing, that the earth is warming, and climate is getting more chaotic.

But, the denial factory, since the solution to the problem endangers the continued super wealth of some of the 1%, will continue to recieve their paychecks to publish lies about what the scientists are doing and seeing.
Yup since satellites... NOW... But the problem is that is ONLY at the most 40 years of data....
The first weather satellite to be considered a success was TIROS-1, launched by NASA on April 1, 1960

Where were you when "scientists" were doing this:

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

Newsweek on the cooling world
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,433
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
This 'Urban Effect' has been a lie for many years. Even Dr. Muller believed it to be true to some extent, and set out in a study to show how much it has affected to record. When he finished his study, he found that there was no effect at all from it, that the scientists involved had been scrupulous in their efforts to adjust for differances from the locations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/o...imate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,433
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
The real story of the 'global cooling' nonsense of the 1970's is in this article. I read the 1975 National Academy of Sciences paper on that shortly after it was published, and if you really want to know what the scientists were thinking then, look it up.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.


Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,433
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Also, why in the hell would you bother to get your science from Newsweek? In '70, I was still short of being 30 years old, but I was already reading from peer reviewed journals. You want science, read what the scientists write, not what scientifically illiterate journalists think they wrote.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top