Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

[spursncowboys]

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


Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11351186/2014-was-worlds-hottest-year-on-record.html)”. 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”.

[Wild Cobra]

They can only keep up the lies and NOAA data corrections up for so long, before getting spanked...

[boutons_deux]

Telegraph? :lol Just another Murdoch toilet paper spewing VRWC/BigCarbon propaganda and lies. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Telegraph? :lol Just another Murdoch toilet paper spewing VRWC/BigCarbon propaganda and lies. :lol
Maybe, but it's better than that recycled toilet paper you read.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ recycled

[Wild Cobra]

Telegraph? :lol Just another Murdoch toilet paper spewing VRWC/BigCarbon propaganda and lies. :lol

Go ahead. Laugh at the source article:

http://www.thegwpf.org/inquiry-launched-into-global-temperature-data-integrity/

[McFudpucker]

:lol

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)? Talk about the right wing echo chamber.

The GWPC issues a statement that the figures are lacking accuracy (a vague statement considering the numbers might be underestimating warming trends) then the Telegraph reports on it?

For the curious, the GWPF was founded around the same time as the release of the Climategate Emails. It's chairman is noted AGW denier Nigel Lawson (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/21/lord-lawson-global-warming-errors).


Lord Lawson of Blaby has enjoyed a massive boost to his public profile over the past couple of years following the launch of his Global Warming Policy Foundation in November 2009.

Many parts of the media now feel obliged to include the views of Lawson and other representatives of the foundation in reports about climate change issues in order to "balance" the statements made by mainstream researchers and policymakers.

Given that the foundation's accounts suggest it only has about 80 members, it has been gaining an impressive amount of publicity in the media, particularly in the Telegraph, Mail and Express, newspapers that have adopted climate change scepticism as an editorial line.

[Th'Pusher]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpX1bsihugY

[boutons_deux]

GWPF states that it is "deeply concerned about the costs (aka BIG CORP / BIG CARBON PROFITS! ) and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated"

Funding Source

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#cite_note-Huhne-13) and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

so it's VRWC UK stink tank polluted with climate denier whores, with 100% secretive funding :lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)? Talk about the right wing echo chamber.

The GWPC issues a statement that the figures are lacking accuracy (a vague statement considering the numbers might be underestimating warming trends) then the Telegraph reports on it?

For the curious, the GWPF was founded around the same time as the release of the Climategate Emails. It's chairman is noted AGW denier Nigel Lawson (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/21/lord-lawson-global-warming-errors).
Have any tangible facts, or just hearsay and coincidences?

[Wild Cobra]

GWPF states that it is "deeply concerned about the costs (aka BIG CORP / BIG CARBON PROFITS! ) and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated"

Funding Source

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#cite_note-Huhne-13) and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

so it's VRWC UK stink tank polluted with climate denier whores, with 100% secretive funding :lol



Cry boo, cry...

I see you can't come up with any valid reasons, so go ahead Boo, cry...

[Wild Cobra]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpX1bsihugY

If a white man did such a thing using "black" terms....

[McFudpucker]

Have any tangible facts, or just hearsay and coincidences?

Plenty. Here's an article in the Guardian linking Lord Lawson to one of Europe's biggest coal companies.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/mar/06/climate-change-sceptic-lawson-coal

[spursncowboys]

Plenty. Here's an article in the Guardian linking Lord Lawson to one of Europe's biggest coal companies.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/mar/06/climate-change-sceptic-lawson-coal

But what you think about the need to find out why the temperature measurement used is so flawed? Do you think this is just a right wing conspiracy?

[boutons_deux]

But what you think about the need to find out why the temperature measurement used is so flawed? Do you think this is just a right wing conspiracy?

land ice is melting at record rates, GFY

[DarrinS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpX1bsihugY


Cringeworthy

[ChumpDumper]

CringeworthyWhy is it cringeworthy, Darrin?

As for the OP -- how are surface temperatures taken by satellites anyway?

[boutons_deux]

Cringeworthy

I thought it was a clever idea, but the translator's pronunciation was too extreme, almost unintelligible, AND way too n!gg@.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

It's always funny how the news for them is the study occurring and never seems to be after the study concludes.

[spurraider21]

Why is it cringeworthy, Darrin?
it was clever at first, got old quick.

imo

[Wild Cobra]

Why is it cringeworthy, Darrin?

As for the OP -- how are surface temperatures taken by satellites anyway?

Not accurately...

[The Reckoning]

I thought it was a clever idea, but the translator's pronunciation was too extreme, almost unintelligible, AND way too n!gg@.


I agree

[ChumpDumper]

Not accurately...You know that actually undermines the anti-warming argument, right?

[ChumpDumper]

If a white man did such a thing using "black" terms....http://i.imgur.com/U7Ghu2s.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You know that actually undermines the anti-warming argument, right?

I don't think he realizes what the UAH dude is about. He is pretty dumb.

[SupremeGuy]

ITT: global warmers are nervous as fuck about having data re-examined, tbh.

[Winehole23]

ITT: global warmers are nervous as fuck about having data re-examined, tbh.why?

[SupremeGuy]

why?Why do you think?

[Wild Cobra]

You know that actually undermines the anti-warming argument, right?

Anti-warming is the extreme opposite that idiots use.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you think?
Those who follow the faith religiously, never understand the difference between facts and dogma.

[ChumpDumper]

Anti-warming is the extreme opposite that idiots use.You know it actually undermines whatever you say your argument is about climate, right?

[Wild Cobra]

You know it actually undermines whatever you say your argument is about climate, right?

In your mind.

I'm not anti-warming, and anyone, like you, who is incapable or arguing against a persons actual point, is a total joke. When you have to lie about someone else's stance. You already lost the debate.

[ChumpDumper]

In your mind.

I'm not anti-warming, and anyone, like you, who is incapable or arguing against a persons actual point, is a total joke. When you have to lie about someone else's stance. You already lost the debate.What debate are we currently having, WC?

[RandomGuy]

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

[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

I'm sure the Global Warming Policy Foundation will issue a fair, thorough, and unbiased investigative report... BUWAHAHAHAHAHA....

Sorry, I just couldn't keep a straight face.

[Wild Cobra]

What debate are we currently having, WC?

I know what you are saying.

You are saying I undermined the OP, because they mention satellites. Now if you hadn't been so stupid as to label people "anti-warming," I would have responded differently.

Just because I satellite measurements are not accurate, for you to jump in and ASSume, is crazy, because I never mentioned any error ranges of either.

You are so fast to argue against anything you can, you make a total jack-ass of yourself.

Now I don't know what the accuracy of the satellite measurements are assumed to be, but uncorrected physical temperature measurements are most accurate. NOAA admits to adjusting these, hence, they probably even less accurate than the satellites.

The bottom line is, the data has been "fiddled" with.

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry, I just couldn't keep a straight face.

I understand. Claiming to be a cold ass honkie explains it all.

[RandomGuy]

I understand. Claiming to be a cold ass honkie explains it all.

You hatin on my gator shoes?

I saw a broken keyboard... I bought a broken keyboard.

[boutons_deux]

Land ice is melting at record rates all over the planet.

AGW deniers and their marginal, whored science are hurting progress towards solutions.

[ChumpDumper]

I know what you are saying.

You are saying I undermined the OP, because they mention satellites. Now if you hadn't been so stupid as to label people "anti-warming," I would have responded differently.

Just because I satellite measurements are not accurate, for you to jump in and ASSume, is crazy, because I never mentioned any error ranges of either.

You are so fast to argue against anything you can, you make a total jack-ass of yourself.

Now I don't know what the accuracy of the satellite measurements are assumed to be, but uncorrected physical temperature measurements are most accurate. NOAA admits to adjusting these, hence, they probably even less accurate than the satellites.

The bottom line is, the data has been "fiddled" with.You made a huge ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSsumption there.

You lost the debate.

[Wild Cobra]

Land ice is melting at record rates all over the planet.

Yes, the ice affected by soot is.



AGW deniers and their marginal, whored science are hurting progress towards solutions.

No, the solutions, if needed, are hampered by the alarmists being seen for what they are. A joke. Too many predictions are seen as laughable, and their credibility is hurt. They did it all to themselves. The stupid need no help.

Now through all these years, if they stated with reasonable predictions, people might listen to them. As it is, anyone with half a brain, sees right through the BS.

[Wild Cobra]

You made a huge ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSsumption there.

You lost the debate.
Are you saying I assumed something I portrayed as fact?

How do you get anti-warming, from this:


Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming.

Are you telling us that "exaggerated" means opposite, and in cooling instead of warming?

We don't disagree that the earth has warmed. We disagree with the extent of which corrected records say it has.

[Wild Cobra]

Consider, from NOAA:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

[ChumpDumper]

Are you saying I assumed something I portrayed as fact?Nope.

I'm not saying that at all.

[Clipper Nation]

why?

Ruins the expensive "green" scam they have going, tbh.