• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

Man, the title of this article should read "Kookville caving in"
 
Man, the title of this article should read "Kookville caving in"

Hmm

Lets see... measuring temperature by satellite.. not as accurate as in place thermometer.

Plus measuring temperature by satellite is new tech, hence the amount of data is limited. Where as we have temperature readings from weather stations going back centuries.. just saying.
 
So a contrarian front group are sponsoring a repeated review of established data, prompted by two newspaper articles by Christopher Booker, who not only denies AGW, but also the health risks of passive smoking and asbestos.
The "top scientists" recruited are all known contrarians with links to the Heartland or Cato institutes among others. I wonder if they will come to the same conclusion as the "BEST" review, which bit the hand that fed it and found the data was sound.
 
Yeah, especially when that thermometer is placed in areas where they know it will give higher readings. :roll:
 
So a contrarian front group are sponsoring a repeated review of established data, prompted by two newspaper articles by Christopher Booker, who not only denies AGW, but also the health risks of passive smoking and asbestos.
The "top scientists" recruited are all known contrarians with links to the Heartland or Cato institutes among others. I wonder if they will come to the same conclusion as the "BEST" review, which bit the hand that fed it and found the data was sound.
Ah, I see. You don't like the data so you must attack the people rather than the data. I think they call that a giant fail...
 
The data is rock solid, it's the "experts" that are flaky. You wish it were not so, but facts trump faith.
 
Yeah, especially when that thermometer is placed in areas where they know it will give higher readings. :roll:

Using a rating system developed by a "skeptic" group, the sites rated as "poorly" located actually show a colder trend than the sites rated "good." Not warmer.
 
Hmm

Lets see... measuring temperature by satellite.. not as accurate as in place thermometer.

Plus measuring temperature by satellite is new tech, hence the amount of data is limited. Where as we have temperature readings from weather stations going back centuries.. just saying.

Even when they measure temperature via thermometer they've routinely manipulated the data to show that the Globe was " warming ".

" Homogenizing " and " Science " is what they call it.

I and everyone else not gullible enough to be sucked into this scam call it what it is, fraud.
 
Even when they measure temperature via thermometer they've routinely manipulated the data to show that the Globe was " warming ".

" Homogenizing " and " Science " is what they call it.

I and everyone else not gullible enough to be sucked into this scam call it what it is, fraud.

They corrected data using a legitimate method. The data is more accurate afterwards.

You are demanding the use of less accurate data.
 
The data is rock solid, it's the "experts" that are flaky. You wish it were not so, but facts trump faith.

Really ? Actually the data AND the Pro-AGW " scientists " are both filled with crap.

The NOAA got busted manipulating temperature data back in 2012, when they declared that July 2012 was the hottest month on record surpassing the previous record in July 1932.

Initially they defended then process of Homogenizing Temperature data and then a ACTUAL Scientists exposed their fraudulent processes.

Eventually the NOAA rescinded their claim reinstating July 1932 as the Hottest month on record.

So much for " homogenizing " being a credible scientific process.
 
They corrected data using a legitimate method. The data is more accurate afterwards.

You are demanding the use of less accurate data.

Did they ?

Empirical data is a essential part of the Scientific method. Now, people on the left have redifined the Scientific method by stating that data manipulation is a " credible " part of the process.

Lol...and Conservatives are the ignorant one's ?

If Homogenizing is " credible " then why did the NOAA rescind their assertion that July 2012 was the hottest month on record ?

They changed their minds because they got busted and were exposed by a REAL Scientist manipulating data to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.
.
Thats not Science, thats fraud.

You people need to learn the difference.
 
Even when they measure temperature via thermometer they've routinely manipulated the data to show that the Globe was " warming ".

" Homogenizing " and " Science " is what they call it.

I and everyone else not gullible enough to be sucked into this scam call it what it is, fraud.

Not true at all, more bull**** from the climate deniers and their fossil fuel backers. The only fraud here is the far right anti climate deniers spreading the same falsehoods over and over again.
 
So a contrarian front group are sponsoring a repeated review of established data, prompted by two newspaper articles by Christopher Booker, who not only denies AGW, but also the health risks of passive smoking and asbestos.
The "top scientists" recruited are all known contrarians with links to the Heartland or Cato institutes among others. I wonder if they will come to the same conclusion as the "BEST" review, which bit the hand that fed it and found the data was sound.

Then you shouldn't worry Manc Skipper, I'm sure there will be calls for the following to be professionally destroyed for daring to investigate scientific methodology. Everyone knows there is a special scientific method in play with AGW, and people aren't allowed to review it.

The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.​
 
Did they ?

Empirical data is a essential part of the Scientific method. Now, people on the left have redifined the Scientific method by stating that data manipulation is a " credible " part of the process.

Lol...and Conservatives are the ignorant one's ?

If Homogenizing is " credible " then why did the NOAA rescind their assertion that July 2012 was the hottest month on record ?

They changed their minds because they got busted and were exposed by a REAL Scientist manipulating data to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.
.
Thats not Science, thats fraud.

You people need to learn the difference.

They didn't rescind anything. They corrected the data.

When they release those initial reports, they always remind people that they aren't final reports and that error correction checks are still in progress.
 
The satellite reading only lasts since 1979 . Given that these temperature trends take centuries to establish it is by its short duration entirely meaningless
 
The satellite reading only lasts since 1979 . Given that these temperature trends take centuries to establish it is by its short duration entirely meaningless

Pssst! It's the satellite data that your side claims is correct, and the homogenised observations are wrong. Get with the new pogramme!
 
Man, the title of this article should read "Kookville caving in"

Follow the money. If you support global warming science grants are easy and plentiful. Many organizations fudge data to keep the money spigot open.
 
Follow the money. If you support global warming science grants are easy and plentiful. Many organizations fudge data to keep the money spigot open.

Somebody saw you coming to have unloaded that much koolade.
 
Follow the money. If you support global warming science grants are easy and plentiful. Many organizations fudge data to keep the money spigot open.

We can't trust scientists! They get paid!
 
They didn't rescind anything. They corrected the data.

When they release those initial reports, they always remind people that they aren't final reports and that error correction checks are still in progress.

Lol ! For some reason, their process of " homogenization " always leads to warming. The problem with your desperate attempts to justify fraud very poorly disguised as Science is they only " corrected " it after a Scientist not affiliated with the NOAA exposed their data as fraudulent.

The NOAA should release reports with the reminder that their process of arbitrarily manipulating data has nothing to do with Science.


Just to verify, here's their initial " report " that shows July 2012 surpassing July 1936.

National Overview - July 2012 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

noaa_usavg_temps_july_focuson_1936_from_20121.jpg

Here's their correction from June 29th...

noaa_usavg_temps_july_focuson_1936_from_20141.jpg

And the NOAA isn't alone when it comes to manipulating temperature data.

The heat is on. Bureau of Meteorology
 
Not true at all, more bull**** from the climate deniers and their fossil fuel backers. The only fraud here is the far right anti climate deniers spreading the same falsehoods over and over again.

Good rebuttal !!

All that text wasted. Next time just post " Nu-uuhh !! "

Its the short hand equivalent of the nonsense you just posted.
 
Hmm

Lets see... measuring temperature by satellite.. not as accurate as in place thermometer.

Plus measuring temperature by satellite is new tech, hence the amount of data is limited. Where as we have temperature readings from weather stations going back centuries.. just saying.

Like when real estate development changes a historic reading site from natural foliage and tree canopy to a mall with 10 acres of black-top? I am sure the readings would stay the same.
 
Man, the title of this article should read "Kookville caving in"

You'll have to help me out. The article essentially announced that some team will examine the same records that have been examined many times before. OK, that's fine. It is their time to waste or spend how they see fit. And they invited submissions with a deadline of a little over 2 months from now. And then they promise to publish the results of these submissions, which they hope will be less than 10 pages each.

Looks like a joke to me. The kind of study that would actually help resolve any controversy would take months of research and statistical work, and weeks to get the results into a form suitable for publishing. I'd think a more realistic deadline is at least six months and more likely a year - not by June 30 of this year. I can't figure out what their goal is, but it's not to resolve any actual controversy because if that was the goal they'd take an entirely different approach.
 
Lol ! For some reason, their process of " homogenization " always leads to warming. The problem with your desperate attempts to justify fraud very poorly disguised as Science is they only " corrected " it after a Scientist not affiliated with the NOAA exposed their data as fraudulent.

The NOAA should release reports with the reminder that their process of arbitrarily manipulating data has nothing to do with Science.


Just to verify, here's their initial " report " that shows July 2012 surpassing July 1936.

National Overview - July 2012 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

View attachment 67183648

Here's their correction from June 29th...

View attachment 67183649

And the NOAA isn't alone when it comes to manipulating temperature data.

The heat is on. Bureau of Meteorology

You make this leap that the adjustments are unwarranted. Nobody has ever proved that to you. You just assumed it must be true.
 
Follow the money. If you support global warming science grants are easy and plentiful. Many organizations fudge data to keep the money spigot open.

EXACTLY, follow the money!!! All these GW scientists can only continue to GET PAID if they can continue to perpetuate that GW is man caused and is at dangerous levels. They sure as hell aren't going to put themselves out of a cushy job. What do rational people think their 'conclusions' are going to be?
 
Back
Top Bottom