The GIG is up on the IPCC and the tweaked NASA data

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Are you saying it is ok to fudge the data because that is how this reads to me?

Not exactly. I'm saying that when dealing with a dataset which is known to have inherent biases due to weaknesses in instrumentation it is important to account for those biases. As pointed out, the algorithms used to deal with those biases produce both higher and lower temperatures than the raw data demonstrates. As pointed out, statistical analysis of both the raw data and the adjusted data show that the trends which appear are valid.

Since this is the only surface data which is available there are three options; use raw data which is known to be faulty, attempt to compensate for the inherent biases, or just say there is no useful data. In attempting to track temperature trends, which one is most viable?

AND it is ok to not look at the whole data set that geologist teach at the University's?

What "whole dataset" are you referring to?

At this point you Phage are honestly going to use a faking of your ignorance as an approach on this matter? Really, that cant be true can it? Ignorance is not one of your mantras and kuddos to you for always making the debates interesting even if you are a piece of work!!

a reply to: Phage

Since this is the only surface data which is available there are three options; use raw data which is known to be faulty, attempt to compensate for the inherent biases, or just say there is no useful data. In attempting to track temperature trends, which one is most viable?

It is not a question of which is the most viable, as that would suggest an agenda. There is only one answer and that would be 'no useful data'. Any of the other options would be a travesty.

a reply to: Justoneman

Yes it's okay with me, why wouldn't it be? If a temp station constantly reads 1 degree higher than the actual temperature why wouldn't you want them to adjust it in the data record? You would prefer to have the incorrect temperature instead?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Justoneman

Yes it's okay with me, why wouldn't it be? If a temp station constantly reads 1 degree higher than the actual temperature why wouldn't you want them to adjust it in the data record? You would prefer to have the incorrect temperature instead?

If as you guys would have me believe, raw temperature data is incorrect that only means it was initially totally useless to us who analyze the data. Sorry, that wont fly in a scientific analysis. That is why I will refer once again to Dr Richard Feynman.. Do you need a primer on his Scientific method?

Well i can only hope you learn the truth before these greedy power hungry governments using this lie steal so much of the peoples hard earned money that we are all in line begging for their handouts.

a reply to: Kali74


Why not use the actual temp instead of a flawed instrument and try to adjust data at all?

originally posted by: Sunwolf
a reply to: Kali74


Why not use the actual temp instead of a flawed instrument and try to adjust data at all?

|
Someone who understands logic.TY

a reply to: kennyb72
Ah. So the hell with it. Good plan.

a reply to: Justoneman

At this point you Phage are honestly going to use a faking of your ignorance as an approach on this matter? Really, that cant be true can it? Ignorance is not one of your mantras and kuddos to you for always making the debates interesting even if you are a piece of work!!

That's pretty vague. Instead of talking about me, how about telling me what dataset you are talking about?

a reply to: Sunwolf

Why not use the actual temp instead of a flawed instrument and try to adjust data at all?

How do you obtain the actual temp without an instrument?

a reply to: Justoneman

Not any few Phage THE VERY SCIENTISTS that generated the IPCC data that was then LIED about.

All of them? There are an awful lot of scientists on the IPCC.

What data was lied about?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sunwolf

Why not use the actual temp instead of a flawed instrument and try to adjust data at all?

How do you obtain the actual temp without an instrument?

NO you did not feign ignorance again on what he was saying did you? I expect more from the like of the Phage on this site.

a reply to: Justoneman

He said this:

Why not use the actual temp instead of a flawed instrument and try to adjust data at all?

How do you obtain "actual temps" without an instrument? More to the point, how do you obtain historical "actual temps" without an instrument?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sunwolf

Why not use the actual temp instead of a flawed instrument and try to adjust data at all?

How do you obtain the actual temp without an instrument?

That is what I want to know,if the thermometer is off replace it or disregard the data.

I read some time ago that over half the weather stations in Russia are no longer operating, due to lack of funds, would that lack of information make a difference to the overall climate/weather patterns/temperatures?
What about the huge lack of CO2 in the atmosphere? at 400 parts per million, that's less than half of one percent of the total. I just don't see how so little can have such a huge effect on the rest of the total atmosphere.
By now, according to all bore, the north west passage should be ice free, why is it not so?
Why is global sea ice at its highest since 1988?

Ah. So the hell with it. Good plan.

a reply to: Phage

A far better option than making things up!

If science is based on manipulated data, it can't even be credited with the title of 'pseudo science', it is simply tampered evidence and is inadmissible by any scientific method.

I wonder who is funding the IPCC and all their hundreds of "independent" scientists?

I bet some sneaky money is behind the UN agenda.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Not any few Phage THE VERY SCIENTISTS that generated the IPCC data that was then LIED about.

All of them? There are an awful lot of scientists on the IPCC.

What data was lied about?
[/quote/

Please dont confuse the Al Gore shills with real questions that make sense. It might scare them away too soon before they have to finally admit either they don't have a clue and need to apologize or that they really work for people with a vested financial interest in avoiding the truth. LOL good post star for you again!

edit on 10-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Sunwolf

That is what I want to know,if the thermometer is off replace it or disregard the data.

That leaves you with very little data. It's not as if the adjustments which are made are random or arbitrary. They are checked against reliable stations, stations which are located in rural environments. The data from newly replaced instruments is compared with older data.

a reply to: kennyb72

If science is based on manipulated data, it can't even be credited with the title of 'pseudo science', it is simply tampered evidence and is inadmissible by any scientific method.

You know that statistical analysis is an integral part of the scientific method, right?

a reply to: Sunwolf

Why not use the actual temp instead of a flawed instrument and try to adjust data at all?

In my book, if the sensor is well calibrated, the unadulterated data is "king". If the sensor is not situated well, it mean a lack of homogeneity among sensor in the network, that is called "lame work", data from this station shall be discarted!