• 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!

On the bizarre idea that AGW is a "hoax".

You have never supported that accusation, and nor has anyone that I've seen in four years on the forum.

Raw data is collected from all around the world with varying consistency and methods in different times and different places. Tossing that unadjusted raw data into a final product would be absurd; instead known biases are corrected for and obviously-flawed data is left out of the analysis. Separate analyses of the raw surface temperature data and correction methods have been undertaken by (at least) the UK Met Office Hadley/CRU partnership (HadCRUT), NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISStemp), NOAA's National Climatic Data Centre (now NCEI) and as of recently the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) - and these are just the English-language records. Different methodologies obviously produce slightly different results, but broadly speaking they all reach similar conclusions.

Temperature reconstructions based on satellite data don't measure surface temperatures - depending on the source and version, the 'lower troposphere' products may have their heaviest weighting as high as 4km above the surface - but even these reconstructions (independently from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems) provide useful comparisons.

Below - 10-year mean comparison for HadCRUT3 unadjusted global mean (pre-2012), HadCRUT4 global mean and GISStemp; and from 1979 the RSS (the site still uses v3, I believe) atmospheric record and UAH v5 (which has a lower atmospheric profile and more surface weighting; the major v6 revision brought it more in line with RSS3): [Edit: Also added in the preliminary land-only analysis from BEST compared against the CRUtem4 land analysis]:
offset:0.25




Your assertion that data is simply "discarded and replaced" by any of these organizations is utterly unsubstantiated; it is contrary to the openly published (and often peer-reviewed) explanations for their bias corrections and adjustments; it is, in other words, slanderous; and it is conspiracy theory thinking at its finest and a prime example of the ignorant dismissal of science which the OP finds so troubling.

We've had this discussion before. Here is the substantiation I presented to you previously.

The data posted on the NASA web site changed after about 1999.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

fig1x.gif




https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Fig.D.gif
 
Raw data? How can it be, it's been changed since 2005?

Here's a graph that shows how much the GISS data has been changed:

wck4lc.jpg


Astute observers will notice a non-random pattern that favors only increases after 1980 and mostly decreases before.

It's a Conspiracy!!!
 
We've had this discussion before. Here is the substantiation I presented to you previously.

The data posted on the NASA web site changed after about 1999.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/



https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

You've provided some pretty solid evidence for improvements to the bias and error corrections in this, one of four major English-language surface temperature records.


You have not provided a single shred of evidence that data was "discarded and replaced." That was, is and always will be a blatant lie in the service of science-denial propaganda.
 
One has to wonder what goes in on a denier's head.
We're not the ones that think climate doesn't change... Deniers indeed are on your side. AGW isn't so much a hoax as it's groupthink.
 
You have never supported that accusation, and nor has anyone that I've seen in four years on the forum.

Raw data is collected from all around the world with varying consistency and methods in different times and different places. Tossing that unadjusted raw data into a final product would be absurd; instead known biases are corrected for and obviously-flawed data is left out of the analysis. Separate analyses of the raw surface temperature data and correction methods have been undertaken by (at least) the UK Met Office Hadley/CRU partnership (HadCRUT), NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISStemp), NOAA's National Climatic Data Centre (now NCEI) and as of recently the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) - and these are just the English-language records. Different methodologies obviously produce slightly different results, but broadly speaking they all reach similar conclusions.

Temperature reconstructions based on satellite data don't measure surface temperatures - depending on the source and version, the 'lower troposphere' products may have their heaviest weighting as high as 4km above the surface - but even these reconstructions (independently from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems) provide useful comparisons.

Below - 10-year mean comparison for HadCRUT3 unadjusted global mean (pre-2012), HadCRUT4 global mean and GISStemp; and from 1979 the RSS (the site still uses v3, I believe) atmospheric record and UAH v5 (which has a lower atmospheric profile and more surface weighting; the major v6 revision brought it more in line with RSS3): [Edit: Also added in the preliminary land-only analysis from BEST compared against the CRUtem4 land analysis]:
offset:0.25




Your assertion that data is simply "discarded and replaced" by any of these organizations is utterly unsubstantiated; it is contrary to the openly published (and often peer-reviewed) explanations for their bias corrections and adjustments; it is, in other words, slanderous; and it is conspiracy theory thinking at its finest and a prime example of the ignorant dismissal of science which the OP finds so troubling.

There's a good article about data adjustment on ArsTechnica

"Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data"
-How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
 
You mean.... it's a big conspiracy?

That would probably be the first 'thought' of a scientifically illiterate lay person suffering from the DK effect and irrational conspiracy ideation after consuming only junk-science conspiracy blogs for years.
 
So that's settled. It's a conspiracy by all scientists everywhere around the world to attack ignorant American taxpayers.
 
So that's settled. It's a conspiracy by all scientists everywhere around the world to attack ignorant American taxpayers.

Well you got the last part right. Its definitely an attack on American taxpayers. But then again, everything the left supports is.
 
Well you got the last part right. Its definitely an attack on American taxpayers. But then again, everything the left supports is.

You poor, poor victim.
 
You poor, poor victim.

Is that supposed to pass as an intelligent comment? Or did you accidentally hit the reply button before you had a chance to say something bright?
 
Is that supposed to pass as an intelligent comment? Or did you accidentally hit the reply button before you had a chance to say something bright?

I'm calling out your victim-card. If you don't like that, stop playing it. No one is attacking you. Don't be a Snowflake.
 
There's a good article about data adjustment on ArsTechnica

"Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data"
-How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

Your link has the same information but in more detail than this old link
United States Historical Climatology Network
that has been pasted up in various blogs for a long time and of course this graph

ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif


is the centerpiece. But it only goes covers up to 2000. The last update at the bottom
of the page is 2010. A quick check of changes made since January 2011 shows the same
pattern of changes that you see in this chart pasted up in my earlier post. So I'm
not picking up old changes prior to 2010. So what's going on? The Time of Day and all
the other changes should have been made before 2010. Why does the data continue to
be changed?
 
But I notice you don't want to say that it's a conspiracy. Or hoax.

Is it because that would be really ****ing stupid to say?

That the changes have been made is a matter of fact. Why they've been made is a matter of opinion.
It looks like there's a very strong bias. If the changes are being made to satisfy a political agenda,
groupthink, that someone else mentioned earlier, is a pretty good term. If there's actual dishonesty
going on, scam is a better word than hoax. If it's organized by secret meetings then conspiracy would
apply. The so-called 2009 Climategate email scandal comes to mind. Is that sort of thing still going on?
 
I'm calling out your victim-card. If you don't like that, stop playing it. No one is attacking you. Don't be a Snowflake.

Did I play the victim? No. Are you still struggling to make an intelligent comment? Yes. When you are honest it makes for better discussion. Perhaps you might give it a shot sometime.
 
Did I play the victim? No. Are you still struggling to make an intelligent comment? Yes. When you are honest it makes for better discussion. Perhaps you might give it a shot sometime.

They're attacking us! They're attacking us! Quick, everyone to the safe space!

*snicker*

They're not attacking you. They just have different opinions. But I suppose some think everything is an attack. Don't we call them Snowflakes?
 
Last edited:
So that's settled. It's a conspiracy by all scientists everywhere around the world to attack ignorant American taxpayers.

Not to mention the petro chemical profiteers, but they haven't pumped any money into this cause.

And RJ Reynolds always sought the truth about the health issues with tobacco. They even hired their own scientists to look for the truth.:lamo
 
Your link has the same information but in more detail than this old link
United States Historical Climatology Network
that has been pasted up in various blogs for a long time and of course this graph

ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif


is the centerpiece. But it only goes covers up to 2000. The last update at the bottom
of the page is 2010. A quick check of changes made since January 2011 shows the same
pattern of changes that you see in this chart pasted up in my earlier post. So I'm
not picking up old changes prior to 2010. So what's going on? The Time of Day and all
the other changes should have been made before 2010. Why does the data continue to
be changed?

Read the article. Or not. Read the NCEI website where they log any updates/changes to datasets. Or don't read it. I'm really not interested in trying to argue anything with someone who believes and rebleats whatever conspiracy nonsense they read on crank conspiracy blogs like "Steve Goddard" etc.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom