DescentBB

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming


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.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record...

To read more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -ever.html

The REAL question is- who do you trust?

anyone denying global warming is an ignorant fool, doing his society a disservice. One can debate the causation, debate whether manmade tech can help reverse the trend, or even if doing so is necessary, but denying the fact of warming is idiotic.

ThunderBunny wrote:The REAL question is- who do you trust?

Definitely not you or anyone you link to! Everything about you screams sensationalism.

It doesn't look like they are denying warming, simply saying that the recorded measurements of tempurature changes have been falsified to make it warmer than the data showed when it was initially recorded.

Was this just a re-reporting of the recent and controversial data 'correction' that is already known and in dispute or is this some new discovery of additional manipulation of data?

callmeslick wrote:anyone denying global warming is an ignorant fool, doing his society a disservice. One can debate the causation, debate whether manmade tech can help reverse the trend, or even if doing so is necessary, but denying the fact of warming is idiotic.

Anthropogenic 'global warming' is questionable- particularly the 'carbon' variety. The hysteria around it is being used to create more ways the 1% can cheat the 99% out of more money.

callmeslick wrote:anyone denying global warming is an ignorant fool, doing his society a disservice. One can debate the causation, debate whether manmade tech can help reverse the trend, or even if doing so is necessary, but denying the fact of warming is idiotic.

Not seeing global warming has flat lined for the last 15 or more years is doing a ostrich at best.

Like anything else that takes time to change, we have a lack of dedication to our own survival on a planet we can't leave nor want to care for properly. We won't really know the true ramifications and changes from the waste we are dumping into our atmosphere until it's far too late to do anything about it. Climate is a giant flywheel that changes very slowly. If climate change IS occurring, and I think it is, then it's already too late and things will freewheel to our eventual doom. So instead of trying to at least change or reduce our fossil fuel addiction in small stages, we forge on ahead like the lemmings we are, in denial, worshiping the God of Oil and Money right on to our eventual suffering. Sometime in the far future, those people who may have survived whatever the present climate will eventually morph into, will wonder why we all were so stupid, blind and uncaring for their future generations.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:anyone denying global warming is an ignorant fool, doing his society a disservice. One can debate the causation, debate whether manmade tech can help reverse the trend, or even if doing so is necessary, but denying the fact of warming is idiotic.

Not seeing global warming has flat lined for the last 15 or more years is doing a ostrich at best.

utter bull★■◆●. The past 3 years were, globally, the warmest EVER recorded, and exceed any best estimates of any temp patterns in the last three millenia.

Will Robinson wrote:It doesn't look like they are denying warming, simply saying that the recorded measurements of tempurature changes have been falsified to make it warmer than the data showed when it was initially recorded.

Was this just a re-reporting of the recent and controversial data 'correction' that is already known and in dispute or is this some new discovery of additional manipulation of data?

Nope, it's just more Internet drivel from people who don't even understand the basic concepts.

Looking into the author himself, he also denies the connection between lung disease and asbestos, that second hand smoking causes cancer, and the theory of evolution, which is impressive since he has no education in science.

He probably doesn't even believe what he writes but writes it because he knows that it appeals strongly to a niche audience who will copy and paste it onto sites like this, in turn generating click revenue from not just his audience but even from the people who know better.

Lol! Well there you go.
That was easy.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:anyone denying global warming is an ignorant fool, doing his society a disservice. One can debate the causation, debate whether manmade tech can help reverse the trend, or even if doing so is necessary, but denying the fact of warming is idiotic.

Not seeing global warming has flat lined for the last 15 or more years is doing a ostrich at best.

utter bull★■◆●. The past 3 years were, globally, the warmest EVER recorded, and exceed any best estimates of any temp patterns in the last three millenia.

Temp increases of .001 deg still doesn't change the fact that the global warming charts have flat lined. Kinda like saying the oceans are at their highest level because you went for a swim in them.

woodchip wrote:Temp increases of .001 deg still doesn't change the fact that the global warming charts have flat lined.

Still don't know how climate change and statistics work yet, huh?

sadly, Vision sort of nails it......yeesh! First woody claims we have peaked. I point out that temps are still rising, and then Woody counters with an answer that shows how little he comprehends the true nature of the problem.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Temp increases of .001 deg still doesn't change the fact that the global warming charts have flat lined.

Still don't know how climate change and statistics work yet, huh?

I'd say about as much as you do.

callmeslick wrote:sadly, Vision sort of nails it......yeesh! First woody claims we have peaked. I point out that temps are still rising, and then Woody counters with an answer that shows how little he comprehends the true nature of the problem.

Too bad you still haven't learned reading skills. A whole world of difference between flat lined and peaked. Nice try tho.

a plateau(flat line) implies either a peak, or a pause in the upward trend, which would sort of undercut your whole tack......

Whoa, whoa, slick, relax on the logic stuff. Sheesh.

callmeslick wrote:a plateau(flat line) implies either a peak, or a pause in the upward trend, which would sort of undercut your whole tack......

WAIT,
so when you die and your EKG goes "flatline" it means things can get worse?

Ya I'm thinking you're wrong.

CUDA wrote:so when you die and your EKG goes "flatline" it means things can get worse?

Well if you want to get technical, yes. A flat EKG does not mean death, and some death (brain death) doesn't require a stopped heart. It is a pretty poor analogy you picked there.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:a plateau(flat line) implies either a peak, or a pause in the upward trend, which would sort of undercut your whole tack......

WAIT,
so when you die and your EKG goes "flatline" it means things can get worse?

Ya I'm thinking you're wrong.

ummm, not exactly the model which one analyzes environmental data, unless we dip down to zero Kelvin, or above the melting point of the Earth's surface materials. Why bother tossing that out when you know it was irrelevant. Geez, CUDA, two juvenile comments in a week....I thought you were the one that told me this board was above that sort of thing?

Ya juvenile. Try looking in the mirror bud.
you make definitive statements not even knowing the meaning of words. So what is it?
Are you being intentionally ignorant or just twisting your words to make a point. Apparently you arent "above" it. In fact you brought it here with you in spades

examples, please. I try and stick with the facts, and have in this thread. You come up with analogies you know to be bogus. Pointing the finger at others bolsters neither your argument or your credibility. You can do better.

You lied about what woody said. He said plateau. You claimed he said peak. Lie. And I believe you did that intentionally. Your propensity to twist words knows no bounds.
then you are not completly correct in your anaolgy of the word plateau, that could also be considered a lie, if your intent was to deceive. Only you know the truth there. And you call me juvenile

CUDA wrote:You lied about what woody said. He said plateau. You claimed he said peak. Lie. And I believe you did that intentionally. Your propensity to twist words knows no bounds.
then you are not completly correct in your anaolgy of the word plateau, that could also be considered a lie, if your intent was to deceive. Only you know the truth there. And you call me juvenile

I addressed, clearly, and in plain English, that a plateau either IS a peak point or a pause before continued rise. Neither Woody, nor you, seem interested in the actual subject, merely engaging in semantic drivel to counter. Read my words, and if you have an alternative explanation, feel free to jump in.

I'm starting to see vision's point about using logic with those who can't cope with same. Yeesh!

While a plateau "may" be a peak point before continuing a rise. It "may" also be a peak point before beginning a decline.
Come on slick. you KNOW better.

P.s. you cant argue logic when you cant even understand words.

CUDA wrote:While a plateau "may" be a peak point before continuing a rise. It "may" also be a peak point before beginning a decline.
Come on slick. you KNOW better.

P.s. you cant argue logic when you cant even understand words.

wow. if it is the start of a decline, it IS A PEAK!! Either the curve has reached apex at the plateau or paused. One or the other. More semantic drivel, now showing you don't understand statistics OR English.

No…a “plateau” can also mean the end of a fast rise, therefore not a pause.

Therefore it’s not a peak either.

A third option, because a plateau doesn’t have to be completely flat.

But putting all of the dumb semantics aside…if it is true, that could mean the planet has started reaching equilibrium…but that is only if true, which I doubt, because at this time I don’t know what to believe. (or care)

Spidey wrote:No…a “plateau” can also mean the end of a fast rise, therefore not a pause.

and, if it marks the end, it is a peak. Do any of you ever have to analyze data in your line of work?

the last statement you made, Spidey, is an honest appraisal(you don't know), as NONE of us know what next year will bring. Even assuming an 'equilibrium' at some higher temperature point(which doesn't seem logical, given the consistent rise, but could be considered plausible if one assumes a static cycle), such an equilbrium would cause MASSIVE effects on populated areas were it to continue. Thus, returning to the OP, concern, maybe even hysterical concerns, would seem warranted and natural human responses. My personal alarm is from the absolute unwillingness to even support research into both human causation or human intervention to stave off the massive effects of long-term warming trends, generally due to ONE political party, willing to sacrifice future generations for the sake of ideological talking points.

Spidey wrote:But putting all of the dumb semantics aside…if it is true, that could mean the planet has started reaching equilibrium…

Related, there is discussion about saturation, which would be a temporary equilibrium, temporary because the Earth has a net positive energy gain from the Sun. It seems most of it is happening in the oceans: warmer water is being pushed downward and melted ice is mixing on the upper layers, the end result is a change in recorded surface temperatures. It's thought that this process cannot continue indefinitely and temperatures will again rise at a faster rate, permanently. Personally, I hope we are wrong about all of it.

Spidey wrote:But putting all of the dumb semantics aside…if it is true, that could mean the planet has started reaching equilibrium…but that is only if true, which I doubt, because at this time I don’t know what to believe. (or care)

Yeah, by the time the globe has too much energy put into it's atmosphere because we love to drive our cars and run our "clean" (cough) coal power plants belching out tons of CO2 like a billion cow farts, all so we can watch dumb ass TV shows and charge our little phones and it eventually cooks all life on earth, you'll be long dead anyway.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:No…a “plateau” can also mean the end of a fast rise, therefore not a pause.

and, if it marks the end, it is a peak. Do any of you ever have to analyze data in your line of work?

Not relevant, but I do know the difference between a warming trend and a rate of speed.

Yes, it would mark the peak of a rapid rise…not the warming trend itself…so exactly which were you referring to in the first place.

I was under the impression you were referring to the warming trend itself, not the rate of speed…because I was the one who introduced that as the third option.

You clearly stated that there were only two possibilities.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:But putting all of the dumb semantics aside…if it is true, that could mean the planet has started reaching equilibrium…

Related, there is discussion about saturation, which would be a temporary equilibrium, temporary because the Earth has a net positive energy gain from the Sun. It seems most of it is happening in the oceans: warmer water is being pushed downward and melted ice is mixing on the upper layers, the end result is a change in recorded surface temperatures. It's thought that this process cannot continue indefinitely and temperatures will again rise at a faster rate, permanently. Personally, I hope we are wrong about all of it.

And here-in lies the problem. We don't know. The climate models from before the realization that the oceans may be trapping heat gave us outcomes that were wrong. If instead the warmers were not being so absolutists, they could make a better presentation to sway the deniers like me from thinking this is all one huge tax dollar scam. Hell the weather models couldn't even get where a snowstorm was going to hit causing unnecessary delays and economic waste.

Woody, the uncertainty in weather is because we are seeing patterns both altered and amplified from historical norms. This is EXACTLY in line with the global warming models for climate change.

woodchip wrote:And here-in lies the problem. We don't know. The climate models from before the realization that the oceans may be trapping heat gave us outcomes that were wrong.

Don't confuse uncertainty in precision with uncertainty of the principal. Climate models are getting more detailed every day. If we had today's models 20 years ago this apparent lull might have been predicted. Keep something else in mind, even if there wasn't significant warming over this period, there also wasn't significant cooling either, which is just as troubling because we are already experiencing global problems from the current temperature.

woodchip wrote:If instead the warmers were not being so absolutists, they could make a better presentation to sway the deniers like me from thinking this is all one huge tax dollar scam.

Serious question: what would it take for you to believe in climate change?

woodchip wrote:Hell the weather models couldn't even get where a snowstorm was going to hit causing unnecessary delays and economic waste.

False weather / climate equivocation. For the thousandth time. When will you learn?

Vision wrote:Serious question: what would it take for you to believe in climate change?

For me I would have to be satisfied that it wasn't being pushed by liars, whores, and special interests. If there is something to a change in our terrestrial climate, I would say the topic got off to a bad start, and continues to be pursued by all the wrong interests. Personally, without doing a whole lot of study (I do not consider this a topic that is crucial to settle, personally, at this point), I tend to be of the opinion that if there is something to this it is only as irreversible as the active presence of it's causes--I believe the earth would probably snap back very quickly, baring any real pollution (CO2 does not count, by any rational definition--I'm talking large quantities of refined waste that does not easily break down or use up). Kind of like in the case of smog or other localized air pollution, which I believe I learned has more to do with the lay of the land around cities which suffer from poor air causing them to exist in a relatively tightly contained environment (Salt Lake City, Utah). I call that poor planning and living in your own squalor, but everything I have ever seen on the tube about it seems to present it as damage to the planet.

Thorne, you are essentially denying a proven fact(that the climate has changed, to the warm side, for decades) because you didn't like how it was presented, or by whom? Are you joking? That is your excuse for an intellectual basis for thought?

No, slick, Thorne and I are not denying the climate is getting warmer (predicated on the data not being wholesale massaged) but that man is the cause of it. The last 15-20 year flat line would indicate that is not the case. So stop saying we are denying warming.

those were Thornes words, Woody. You clarified yours.