Warmest Winter on Record: 2014-2015

a reply to: Greven

Look again my response above in which I showed.


ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Now what new excuse are you going to make?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Ah nice, edited in your last post after I'd responded, then accuse me of not responding to it.

There, was that such a hard question to answer that it took a whole page?

Still, there's a bit of a sticky wicket. Remember the last page, where I mentioned the station IDs not being the same?
id=308860860000
id=308860860001
id=308860860002
id=308860860003
id=308860860004

Take a look at your chart. It only shows one station ID. Seems like a bit of a problem again.

a reply to: Greven

Where the hell did i accuse you of not responding to that. I posted that last response because after I edited my previous post I saw your response...

Again, you keep trying to change goal post. From claiming there is no evidence of which came first. To claiming there were different stations, to claiming all the stations showed different temperatures and NOTHING of what you claimed is true.

originally posted by: Greven
...
Take a look at your chart. It only shows one station ID. Seems like a bit of a problem again.

Because there was only one station. That station was moved, which is the main excuse used for the adjustment.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Where the hell did i accuse you of not responding to that. I posted that last response because after I edited my previous post I saw your response...

I suppose I misinterpreted things. Sorry about that.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Then... there was a legitimate reason to adjust the data?

Given that they document the exact adjustments, what then is the problem? Seems like a pretty poor conspiracy.

originally posted by: Greven

Then... there was a legitimate reason to adjust the data?

Given that they document the exact adjustments, what then is the problem? Seems like a pretty poor conspiracy.

There was not... More so when in the 60s Puerto Casado was a much smaller community. Yet the "adjusted" data moved the data points in the 60s downwards(even when the unadjusted raw data showed that it was warmer back then), meanwhile "adjusting" the later data points upwards without giving a clear concise argument for doing so.

You also forget the other attempts by similar agencies to fudge the data. From deleting the raw data, to fudging the Russian data, etc...

But i digress, like always AGW believers like you just like to dismiss whatever disagrees with your belief.

Notice AGAIN how your goal posts keep changing... From making false claims, claiming the data was something which it wasn't, to then trying to attack me (attacking the messenger).

As for "moving the station being a legitimate reason"?... It isn't when the temperature wouldn't change that much within the same area by moving the station to another location.

The move was not done to hundreds of miles away...or to a higher altitude. The station stayed within the confines of Puerto Casado, which is a small area.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No raw data has been deleted.

The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

news.investors.com...

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
link


Cheap oil hides global-warming fee, for now
link

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

link

You all can keep talking about global warming all you want, but those intelligent beings among us wont be falling for it - we have nothing to gain from the lies.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
But i digress, like always AGW believers like you just like to dismiss whatever disagrees with your belief.

Notice AGAIN how your goal posts keep changing... From making false claims, claiming the data was something which it wasn't, to then trying to attack me (attacking the messenger).

No, I simply don't take accusations at face value.

This discussion is not about moving goal posts. When one begins a search for the truth in a matter, one does not stop part-way through. In order to claim one data set is based upon another, there must first be a link between the two - that's step one. You've now provided that, thank you.

Step two is trickier - what is their motive for adjustment. You've claimed that the data was allegedly adjusted because of the station being moved. This seems reasonable given that there are different data sets compiled into a larger whole. However, it appears to me that you are saying the motive was malicious - adjusting the data to fit AGW.

Is this the case?

There are other charts in different areas. You can look up any of those images by plugging in a shortened station id (30187078000 is for station id 301870780000, for example).

And what the high priests of the church of warmingology, that constantly tell us that 99.9% of ALL scientists are parts of the consensus, have to tell us about Freeman Dyson's idea on Global warming:

Link

Probably he is just a flat Earth believer...