- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,244
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The scandal of fiddled global warming data - TelegraphWhen future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Why do so many people not understand what the word global means?
Why do so many people not understand what the word global means?
The article cited https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/Why do so many people not understand what the word global means?
Oh looky! Another paradigm shift!
Instead of accepting the Earth is warming b-b-but... isn't the fault of Co2... this week we are pretending the Earth isn't warming at all...
Next week we'll be back to cosmic rays effecting the warming? The week after that it will be black soot? The week after that it will be anything besides the inconvenient truth that we need to change our behavior to secure our children's future.
How about we just accept that the science isn't settled please.
Oh but it is with you guys. Any "science" that says we don't need to do anything is the right science is it not? Have you guys ever met a piece of denial science you didn't support?
The fact is, rational people **** an eye to people who say, "We have a problem, and you need to give us all your money to solve it."
Simple really. The demand kind of begs some questions to be answered. At least for thinking people.
I can appreciate Progressives wanting people to do it without question, since they likely won't have any skin in the game.
Oh but it is with you guys. Any "science" that says we don't need to do anything is the right science is it not? Have you guys ever met a piece of denial science you didn't support?
"give us all your money" is a strawman created to frighten the easily rattled.
"thinking people" is an insult that suggests only people who agree with you are intelligent.
"progressives won't have any skin in the game" is another insult implying we are poor compared to financially successful people such are yourself.
You're a jerk and have nothing to add but an ignorant tantrum laden with lies and insults.
Moderator's Warning: |
The fact is, rational people **** an eye to people who say, "We have a problem, and you need to give us all your money to solve it."
Simple really. The demand kind of begs some questions to be answered. At least for thinking people.
I can appreciate Progressives wanting people to do it without question, since they likely won't have any skin in the game.
I don't think it can be solved, at least not in time to stop a noticeable sea level rise. Think of the climate as the Titanic, we see the iceberg but can't turn fast enough. Severe damage IS going to to happen.
It's a sorry state of affairs that folk can so eagerly swallow up these conspiracy theories without even a second thought. Between NOAA and GISS and the systematic selection and movement of measuring locations alleged by Lord of Planar, there must be hundreds of people in the know on this supposed scandal, many if not most of them scientists theoretically committed to the pursuit of truth, and yet none of them seem to share these concerns.
But obviously the mere scientists who work with the data can't be trusted. Instead, the Telegraph article and Mr. Vicchio rely on a far more reputable source: The word of a blogger posting under the pseudonym 'Steven Goddard.' According to the Heartland Institute, our new blogger friend is "an expert in computer graphics and high performance computing. He has a B.S. in Geology from ASU, and a Masters in Electrical Engineering from Rice University." Obviously this is a fellow of unparalleled expertise and unquestionable integrity when it comes to climate data!
'Goddard' says of the USHCN data that "before they release it to the public, they put it through a series of adjustments which change it from a cooling trend to a warming trend."
So obviously, if the accusations of tampering and scandalous fiddling with the data held any merit whatsoever, a more reliable source should show a much smaller warming trend than the USHCN data (used also by GISS, as Goddard notes). But unfortunately for all you conspiracy theorists out there, Bob Tisdale (author of three AGW sceptical books) has done the legwork necessary to see how patently false that is: The UAH satellite record actually shows more warming over the United States in the period 1979-2009 than the GISS/USHCN record does!
Due to complications explained in the blog, Tisdale's analysis covers only about three-quarters of the mainland US, but that's more than enough to show how utterly absurd is Goddard's conspiracy theory, and how naive is anyone who blindly parrots it. If the USHCN/GISS data had been scandalously 'tampered' with, and the real temperature trends should be seen in the raw data, we'd expect the reliable UAH record to show somewhere in the order of 0.6 degrees less warming in that period.
Instead it shows a little more warming!
Whatever those guys at NOAA are doing, perhaps they're not doing enough of it.
Unless... well of course, it's obvious now that I think about it: Spencer, Christy and the UAH team must be in on the manipulated-warming conspiracy also!
:lamo :lamo :lamo
The sorry part is people buying the agw bull****.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?