Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Shady

The scandal of fiddled global warming data

Recommended Posts

This should be taken into consideration whenever you hear "it's been the hottest" such and such from somebody on the alarmist side.

...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).

,,,

...in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

Also...

The graph below shows the annual percentage of US June temperatures above 100 degrees through the 21st of the month.

Prior to 1954, 100 degree June days were much more common, and this June has been below the 1895-2014 mean.

screenhunter_628-jun-23-07-02.gif

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/summers-used-to-be-much-hotter-in-the-us-2/

Unfortunately this isn't the first time we've seen data maniuplation regarding climate "science". The hockey stick hoax was the first of their creative accounting, which is also referenced in these links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Percentage above 100 degrees since June 21st... that screams 'cherry picked'...

If you run enough queries, you can always find an anomaly that looks like things are fine. The average temperature graph, though, is the one that looks like things are getting warmer. I think NOAA put it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The average temperature graph, though, is the one that looks like things are getting warmer. I think NOAA put it out.

From the link Shady provided:

...in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades

NOAA has been caught lying far too many times for any serious person to take a thing they say at face value anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict that Waldo will soon be attracted to this topic, and that he will pour scorn on the OPs cite. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I have a strong sense of precognition working for me.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What qualifications does Steven Goddard have to provide as a credibly referenceable opinion, might as well be from Shady's mouth.

Next as I've come to research this bloke has had to retract his incendiary comments in the past, which I think he may have to again. If you look at his gif you'll notice he uses magician's misdirection.....red circles what he wants you to notice and downplays what he doesn't.

Here's my crank out of the woodwork, only he uses his real name and likeness.....he's funny like that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict that Waldo will soon be attracted to this topic, and that he will pour scorn on the OPs cite. I know I'm going onut on a limb here, but I have a strong sense of precognition working for me.

Exactly. I wonder what the over-under will be on the terms denier, blog, denier-blog, and buddy. I'd say about 3, maybe 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and the over-under on emoticons is probably 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhhh Shady! This all came out in 2007 and has recycled several times now... this is simply the latest recycle - just another piece of crap from a blogger (Goddard)... just a blogger... a guy with no credentials other than he is a regular go-to crank for an assortment of denier web sites... a guy affiliated with the Heartland Institute, no less! And... pushed forward by "jounalist" Christopher Brooker. Well done, Shady.

the most salient questions for you Shady... the only real plus that can come out of a thread like this: why would you automatically accept... just blindly accept... anything put forward by nothing more than a blogger? Why would you take the word of nothing more than a blogger over the related scientists and the reputations of organizations like NOAA (and NASA, because NASA is involved in this, as well).

answer these lil ditties and I'll come back to address the article itself. Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOAA has been caught lying far too many times for any serious person to take a thing they say at face value anymore.

caught lying citation requests... pleeease!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....Unfortunately this isn't the first time we've seen data maniuplation regarding climate "science". The hockey stick hoax was the first of their creative accounting, which is also referenced in these links.

...and it won't be the last. The usual suspects will parade even more American alphabet soup manipulations to try an save a losing cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and it won't be the last. The usual suspects will parade even more American alphabet soup manipulations to try an save a losing cause.

Go try to sell that bullshit to people living on the Maldives! Fat stupid people living on high ground are...just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go try to sell that bullshit to people living on the Maldives! Fat stupid people living on high ground are...just that.

Hooray, another one who fell for the hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hooray, another one who fell for the hoax.

huh! "Hoax"??? What hoax, hey? You feeling frisky, hey Bry? Don't forget this request for you to step-up and support your prior statement saying "NOAA has been caught lying far too many times":

NOAA has been caught lying far too many times for any serious person to take a thing they say at face value anymore.

caught lying citation requests... pleeease!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most predictably, no one has the ability to back up their accusations with anything but complaints about having their pants pulled down in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the most salient questions for you Shady... the only real plus that can come out of a thread like this: why would you automatically accept... just blindly accept... anything put forward by nothing more than a blogger? Why would you take the word of nothing more than a blogger over the related scientists and the reputations of organizations like NOAA (and NASA, because NASA is involved in this, as well).

Come on Waldo, everybody knows that the entire scientific community has joined forces to invent the climate change myth, so they can fool governments into funding their research. Unqualified bloggers like Stephen Goddard are champions just trying to level the playing field for the little guys like ExxonMobil, BP and Koch Industries. Waldo, why do you always side with Big Science over the altruistic intentions of the kind and neighbourly fossil fuel community?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the link Shady provided:

NOAA has been caught lying far too many times for any serious person to take a thing they say at face value anymore.

Adjusting is part of the science. The deniers always celebrate when the temps are adjusted their ways, so...

Also - you have been asked for a cite about NOAA lying - do you have one or did you make it up ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adjusting is part of the science.

Tampering with previous data is not science by any definition.

Also - you have been asked for a cite about NOAA lying - do you have one or did you make it up ?

You just admitted that you understand that lying is "part of the science".

Edited by Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Corrections are part of science. So you don't have a cite ?

You just admitted it again. No cite required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...