Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

a reply to: Kali74

I stopped the moment I saw "interpreter of interpretations" James Delingpole's name attached to it.




Besides, I couldn't get past the hot chicks eating ice cream on the beach. But this is the kind of hard-hitting journalism that matters to "older, less-educated males from larger households, who are not typically active information-seekers" I guess.

a reply to: jrod

I had to. I could feel the mental screaming all the way over here!

a reply to: mc_squared

Remember kiddies, intellect is a tool of the devil.



Oh my he actually used air quotes...

originally posted by: stirling
The manipulation goes on......We are mere prawns ......

Ahem - you want to be covered in batter and deep-fried?

Take away all the rhetoric and partisan ship and even the facts and data themselves...takeaway...is there man made global warming or not and is there even global warming or not etc. Just take all that away and simplify everything.

Could or would thousands of scientists and their support personnel( many with doctorates and masters degrees in related fields)...would they all be manipulating data...could they all manipulate data and to what end? Many hundreds and even thousands of them don't rely on government grants to keep their jobs and keep their research going anyways. so why would they then even lie?

I mean...simplify even what I just wrote above.

1. Would hundreds of thousands of people lie about climate data, change that data and lie to us?
2. That would be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the Universe. Is that likely?
3. Why would those scientists that don't rely on grants and funding lie? and if so, why would they lie to us?

Warmist scaremonger rhetoric sound like an old marketting ad on TV about Hygrade sausages, something like:

"More people eat them because they are fresh, they are fresher because more people eat them".

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Entreri06

regardless of any finger pointing or being a "flat Earther", in reading the article and seeing the data presented,
1. why were the graphs altered?
2. why were the graphs altered to look as if a warming trend was occurring when the raw data did not show that?
3. what affect might the raw data have had on the big picture?

Just curious.

I haven't read the article, but for one brietbart is garbage. The added data could be anything. It could be a secondary source that should have been added... Anything really....

Hypothetically it could be the evidence cracking the whole thing open. But if so you'll see the 97% of scientists come out and change or debunk climate change. What you won't have is some vast conspiracy paying off every other MIT student...


Science could be wrong, but if so they will fix it. That's the point of science.

originally posted by: amazing
Take away all the rhetoric and partisan ship and even the facts and data themselves...takeaway...is there man made global warming or not and is there even global warming or not etc. Just take all that away and simplify everything.

Could or would thousands of scientists and their support personnel( many with doctorates and masters degrees in related fields)...would they all be manipulating data...could they all manipulate data and to what end? Many hundreds and even thousands of them don't rely on government grants to keep their jobs and keep their research going anyways. so why would they then even lie?

I mean...simplify even what I just wrote above.

1. Would hundreds of thousands of people lie about climate data, change that data and lie to us?
2. That would be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the Universe. Is that likely?
3. Why would those scientists that don't rely on grants and funding lie? and if so, why would they lie to us?

They wouldn't.. Lol


( the following post is fair... I misspelled it the first time :p)

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: amazing
Take away all the rhetoric and partisan ship and even the facts and data themselves...takeaway...is there man made global warming or not and is there even global warming or not etc. Just take all that away and simplify everything.

Could or would thousands of scientists and their support personnel( many with doctorates and masters degrees in related fields)...would they all be manipulating data...could they all manipulate data and to what end? Many hundreds and even thousands of them don't rely on government grants to keep their jobs and keep their research going anyways. so why would they then even lie?

I mean...simplify even what I just wrote above.

1. Would hundreds of thousands of people lie about climate data, change that data and lie to us?
2. That would be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the Universe. Is that likely?
3. Why would those scientists that don't rely on grants and funding lie? and if so, why would they lie to us?

That wouldn't.. Lol

That wouldn't what?

a reply to: Entreri06

Thanks for the reply. I am asking an honest question. Forget the source. There is data in the article. It's shown that the data was changed. Once changed, it made what I see, appear to support a warming trend(something I don't discount), while the raw data, did not show the same increase.

As a non science person who just wants to know who is lying and who is telling the truth, can you or any one else explain why the data was changed?


ETA: if possible, could you explain it as if you were talking to a 10 year old? Not being rude, just keeping everything easy to digest.

a reply to: network dude

It's shown that the data was changed. Once changed, it made what I see, appear to support a warming trend(something I don't discount), while the raw data, did not show the same increase.

No need to be a scientist to detect lies and manipulation. Do a Google search for 'hide the decline' and findout where it come from.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: network dude

It's shown that the data was changed. Once changed, it made what I see, appear to support a warming trend(something I don't discount), while the raw data, did not show the same increase.

No need to be a scientist to detect lies and manipulation. Do a Google search for 'hide the decline' and findout where it come from.

www.skepticalscience.com...

This I think?

a reply to: network dude

Read the links in the story.

a reply to: amazing

Or maybe this?

“Mike’s trick” to hide the decline — still shocking

It's funny that people are so certain about global warming or climate change or whatever the catchy term for the day is, seem to think that in matters of climate the predicted outcome is set in stone. But then we have the incident earlier this week about that "snowaggedin". The computer models all pointed to a massive snow storm for NYC and it didn't happen. Hmm maybe we overestimate the abilities of science in regards to determining trends with the weather?

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: amazing

Or maybe this?

“Mike’s trick” to hide the decline — still shocking

But let's not get so lost in the "tree rings" that we can't see the forest. This is just one small fraction of the climate debate. It's the overall data, research...the big picture...the forest that is important to me. Yes? Meaning we could post links and discuss this for ages, but in the end, it doesn't matter....because there are thousands of other things to discuss, thousands of emails, thousands of graphs, hundreds of reports and articles and published research papers...and overwhelmingly most of them tell me the world is getting hotter and that man is a big reason for it.

a reply to: Kali74

Why Adjust Temperatures?

There are a number of folks who question the need for adjustments at all. Why not just use raw temperatures, they ask, since those are pure and unadulterated? The problem is that (with the exception of the newly created Climate Reference Network), there is really no such thing as a pure and unadulterated temperature record. Temperature stations in the U.S. are mainly operated by volunteer observers (the Cooperative Observer Network, or co-op stations for short). Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate.


Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) in Stevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems (MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.

All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper.


Time of observation changes from afternoon to morning also can add a cooling bias of up to 0.5 C, affecting maximum and minimum temperatures similarly. The reasons why this occurs, how it is tested, and how we know that documented time of observations are correct (or not) will be discussed in detail in the subsequent post. There are also significant positive minimum temperature biases from urban heat islands that add a trend bias up to 0.2 C nationwide to raw readings.

This is from that source. From my understanding, the data is somewhat unreliable. Or is there some other explanation. (remember, I don't know what most of this means, which is why I asked)

Bold parts were done by me.

a reply to: amazing

But let's not get so lost in the "tree rings" that we can't see the forest.

Yeah, as usual those small details are not important and can be "ignored" when it does not fit well the warmists agenda, but when it serve "the cause", they become "undeniable proof".

That's why I consider the "warming" more a religious trend than a real scientific phenomenon. Its always the same when you argue against a dogma ...

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: amazing

But let's not get so lost in the "tree rings" that we can't see the forest.

Yeah, as usual those small details are not important and can be "ignored" when it does not fit well the warmists agenda, but when it serve "the cause", they become "undeniable proof".

That's why I consider the "warming" more a religious trend than a real scientific phenomenon. Its always the same when you argue against a dogma ...

Hmmm I don't think so...I mean can you really say that you'll discount everything else just because of this one issue? I mean, yes it needs to be considered, but it's one very small piece of the debate. It almost seems like you have "more dogma" than me when you are arguing against global warming. I'm pretty open minded. Are you? ARe you willing to consider all the data?

a reply to: network dude

You selected the exact part that provides the best overall explanation, and it comes from a scientist that is a favorite source for deniers.

The adjustments are made to compensate for a variety of reasons. Location. Readings that are too warm or cool when compared. Compensations for time of day readings were taken.

Example:
Monday 2pm 85F
Tuesday 2PM 84F
Wednesday 7AM 68F
Thursday 2PM 85F
Friday 7AM 67F
Saturday 2PM 83F
Sunday 2PM 86F

Wednesday and Friday would get an adjustment because the overall trend is that at 2PM it's mid 80's. This is a very simplified example. Other factors would have to be looked at to actually make the adjustment, like was it raining that day etc...