drobeski 3,061 Posted February 9, 2015 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorthernVike 2,080 Posted February 9, 2015 So you're saying AL Gore and his kind cheated? They must be Patriot fans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 9, 2015 So you're saying AL Gore and his kind cheated? They must be Patriot fans. yer farcin it ked .. Isn't that how fargotardmouth Minnesotans say it ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 9, 2015 Well, that settles it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted February 9, 2015 With the economy on the rebound and things going great in the country, it's time for the Republitards to recycle old global warming issues. Won't be long till they try to resurrect Benghazi and the birth certificate. Keep the momentum going, Obama. They're flailing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 3,539 Posted February 9, 2015 What makes ice melt? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 9, 2015 With the economy on the rebound and things going great in the country, it's time for the Republitards to recycle old global warming issues. Won't be long till they try to resurrect Benghazi and the birth certificate. Keep the momentum going, Obama. They're flailing. your dream boy Obama said it was the worlds biggest threat in his state of the union Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 9, 2015 your dream boy Obama said it was the worlds biggest threat in his state of the union I put it at #2......right after 1000 year old Christians. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 9, 2015 I put it at #2......right after 1000 year old Christians.that's because you hate polar bears Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FeelingMN 273 Posted February 9, 2015 Booker is the same guy who said asbestos was a scam. Seems pretty reliable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 9, 2015 Booker is the same guy who said asbestos was a scam. Seems pretty reliable.so they don't manipulate the data ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FeelingMN 273 Posted February 9, 2015 so they don't manipulate the data ? I suggest going to the primary source and seeing exactly what they did. The good thing about science is it is pretty transparent. The data and methodology is out there. Read through it yourself to see what it says. Read through the "article" you posted and noticed how many "quotes" were included without any "substance". Just seems like a hack job....and doing a quick search on Booker shows that's exactly what he is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted February 9, 2015 I suggest going to the primary source and seeing exactly what they did. The good thing about science is it is pretty transparent. The data and methodology is out there. Read through it yourself to see what it says. Read through the "article" you posted and noticed how many "quotes" were included without any "substance". Just seems like a hack job....and doing a quick search on Booker shows that's exactly what he is. drobs would never post a hack job of an article simply because it said something that he believed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 3,539 Posted February 9, 2015 drobs would never post a hack job of an article simply because it said something that he believed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 9, 2015 drobs would never post a hack job of an article simply because it said something that he believed. If he did, I'm sure you would show up to about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 9, 2015 I suggest going to the primary source and seeing exactly what they did. The good thing about science is it is pretty transparent. The data and methodology is out there. Read through it yourself to see what it says. Read through the "article" you posted and noticed how many "quotes" were included without any "substance". Just seems like a hack job....and doing a quick search on Booker shows that's exactly what he is. Knock yourself out. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,501 Posted February 9, 2015 With the economy on the rebound and things going great in the country, it's time for the Republitards to recycle old global warming issues. Won't be long till they try to resurrect Benghazi and the birth certificate. Keep the momentum going, Obama. They're flailing. I imagine life does look pretty good to you looking out of the egress window in your parents basement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 3,539 Posted February 9, 2015 I think it is always wise to be cautious of any "study" or research. Isn't faked research the current cause of the entire vaxxer movement? A lawyer paid a doctor like 600k to fabricate that vaxx study.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,501 Posted February 9, 2015 I think it is always wise to be cautious of any "study" or research. Isn't faked research the current cause of the entire vaxxer movement? A lawyer paid a doctor like 600k to fabricate that vaxx study.... When you pay someone to prove something they will return positive results as long as you pay them. MMGW is currently a multi-billion dollar business. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 3,539 Posted February 9, 2015 When you pay someone to prove something they will return positive results as long as you pay them. MMGW is currently a multi-billion dollar business. I would be suspicious of any study that leaned either way is my point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,501 Posted February 9, 2015 I would be suspicious of any study that leaned either way is my point. Correct! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 9, 2015 How's that MMGW working out for you Bahstonians? http://www.wcvb.com/weather/snow-sets-historic-records-in-boston/31168556 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FeelingMN 273 Posted February 9, 2015 Knock yourself out. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/ Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the "raw" data? A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps, introduced by station moves or equipment updates, are corrected for. In adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCDC applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCDC website. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html So they are up front about what they're doing and why they're doing it. Where exactly is the lying and the deceit? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magnificent Bastard 190 Posted February 9, 2015 Sarah Palin doesn't believe in climate change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 9, 2015 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html So they are up front about what they're doing and why they're doing it. Where exactly is the lying and the deceit? Weird how the changes always make it hotter than the actual reading, huh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Saint Elistan 106 Posted February 9, 2015 I never know whether to laugh or cry when these threads pop up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FeelingMN 273 Posted February 9, 2015 Weird how the changes always make it hotter than the actual reading, huh? The processes and evaluations of the procedures used have been discussed in numerous publications. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 9, 2015 The processes and evaluations of the procedures used have been discussed in numerous publications. Weird how the changes always make it hotter than the actual reading, huh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tanatastic 2,061 Posted February 9, 2015 Global warming is a farce. Call me when theres no more ice, then ill care. *Google maps antarctica* yep, still ice, nothing to see here. Its always the same story..."If we dont do something, in 50,000 years the ice caps will melt! Who cares? Ill be dead. In fact, if you told me I could have a million bucks right now but the entire earth explodes a day after I die, id take it. Im dead, who cares? Theres no god/ressurection/reincarnation, its just dead, nothing, blackness so who cares? In fact, id take 5 bucks for that same deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Saint Elistan 106 Posted February 9, 2015 Global warming is a farce. Call me when theres no more ice, then ill care. *Google maps antarctica* yep, still ice, nothing to see here. Its always the same story..."If we dont do something, in 50,000 years the ice caps will melt! Who cares? Ill be dead. In fact, if you told me I could have a million bucks right now but the entire earth explodes a day after I die, id take it. Im dead, who cares? Theres no god/ressurection/reincarnation, its just dead, nothing, blackness so who cares? In fact, id take 5 bucks for that same deal. Yep, I should cry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 3,539 Posted February 9, 2015 Global warming is a farce. Call me when theres no more ice, then ill care. *Google maps antarctica* yep, still ice, nothing to see here. Its always the same story..."If we dont do something, in 50,000 years the ice caps will melt! Who cares? Ill be dead. In fact, if you told me I could have a million bucks right now but the entire earth explodes a day after I die, id take it. Im dead, who cares? Theres no god/ressurection/reincarnation, its just dead, nothing, blackness so who cares? In fact, id take 5 bucks for that same deal. I cannot understand how our problems never get solved, and seem to only get worse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FeelingMN 273 Posted February 9, 2015 Weird how the changes always make it hotter than the actual reading, huh? Actually, they don't. Looking at Puerto Casado, there was no data for 1970. The adjusted data for 1970 is one of the 4-5 coolest in the record. If you look at data points immediately pre and post 2000, those adjustments weren't higher either. Maybe the slope of the graph changes because once you start making consistent readings you capture the ongoing warming trend. If there are problems with the methodology, then critique that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 9, 2015 . Maybe the slope of the graph changes because once you start making consistent changes you capture the ongoing warming trend. Fixed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FeelingMN 273 Posted February 10, 2015 Fixed. The website surfacestations.org enlisted an army of volunteers, travelling across the U.S. photographing weather stations. The point of this effort was to document cases of microsite influence - weather stations located near car parks, air conditioners and airport tarmacs and anything else that might impose a warming bias. While photos can be compelling, the only way to quantify any microsite influence is through analysis of the data. This has been done in On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record (Menne 2010), published in the Journal of Geophysical Research. The trends from poorly sited weather stations are compared to well-sited stations. The results indicate that yes, there is a bias associated with poor exposure sites. However, the bias is not what you expect. Weather stations are split into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). Each day, the minimum and maximum temperature are recorded. All temperature data goes through a process of homogenisation, removing non-climatic influences such as relocation of the weather station or change in the Time of Observation. In this analysis, both the raw, unadjusted data and homogenised, adjusted data are compared. Poor sites show a cooler maximum temperature compared to good sites. For minimum temperature, the poor sites are slightly warmer. The net effect is a cool bias in poorly sited stations. Considering all the air-conditioners, BBQs, car parks and tarmacs, this result is somewhat a surprise. Why are poor sites showing a cooler trend than good sites? The cool bias occurs primarily during the mid and late 1980s. Over this period, about 60% of USHCN sites converted from Cotton Region Shelters (CRS otherwise known as Stevenson Screens) to electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature Systems (MMTS). MMTS sensors are attached by cable to an indoor readout device. Consequently, limited by cable length, they're often located closer to heated buildings, paved surfaces and other artificial sources of heat. Investigations into the impact of the MMTS on temperature data have found that on average, MMTS sensors record lower daily maximums than their CRS counterparts, and, conversely, slightly higher daily minimums (Menne 2009). Only about 30% of the good sites currently have the newer MMTS-type sensors compared to about 75% of the poor exposure locations. Thus it's MMTS sensors that are responsible for the cool bias imposed on poor sites. http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html Little known facts about low information voters: they love Christopher Booker and they suspect there's always an FBI Surveillance Van around the corner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted February 10, 2015 You're confusing low-information to just being a gullible idiot. RP is certainly not low-information. He eats, breaths and sleeps politics. It's his obsession. It's why his wife and kids left him. Problem is, he isn't really looking for actual information. He just wants to hear conservative viewpoints on every topic. Breitbart, Fox News, the Blaze, Drudge Reports, etc. So RP is certainly not short on information. He's just totally void of any unbiased opinions. Therefore, every thought of his can be predicted by every single one of us. He can't form his own opinion. And the FBI van thingy is proof of how well his brain works when it's not told what to think and he has to try to figure things out on his own. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 10, 2015 http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html Little known facts about low information voters: they love Christopher Booker and they suspect there's always an FBI Surveillance Van around the corner. So basically, any readings prior to the 1980s include a lot of shiotty temperature reading locations and substandard equipment. Kinda makes you wonder just how bad and inaccurate all the data prior to the 80s is. Well, at least in the USA since that is where they looked at the stations. Are we to assume the rest of the world still has shiotty equipment placed in shiotty locations? I thought we were talking about "global" warming. ETA: Fox completely owns Ducky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted February 10, 2015 I haven't seen a beatin' like that since somebody stuck a banana in my pants and turned a monkey loose. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,430 Posted February 10, 2015 RP's going to have to change his handle again, the way things have been going for him lately Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted February 10, 2015 I haven't seen a beatin' like that since somebody stuck a banana in my pants and turned a monkey loose. No kidding. The MMGW cultists really took it on the chin here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted February 10, 2015 RP got thrown around like a rag doll in this thread. And it's not even in his top ten most humiliating threads of 2015. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
