Blatant fraud in action.
-
A Reconstruction Of Unadjusted US Temperatures[^] Anyone got any kind of argument as to why this publicly funded prick has the right to do what he is doing?
============================== Nothing to say.
-
A Reconstruction Of Unadjusted US Temperatures[^] Anyone got any kind of argument as to why this publicly funded prick has the right to do what he is doing?
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Anyone got any kind of argument as to why this publicly finded prick has the right to do what he is doing?
Not sure to which person of the several possible from that article you are referring but... You mean based solely and entirely on a posting on a site where the entire purpose of the site is to refute anything and everything associated with "global warming"? Then no. No more so then I am going to start treating a serious health condition based on a single site that claims a certain homeopathic remedy is proven to cure for it. There are long standing scientifically proven reasons for adjusting data. Any data (not just weather data.) That says nothing about whether the data in this case was correctly adjusted. But the article you posted makes no comment about that either - so it is either alarmist or ignorant. Or both.
-
Who gives a crap about "rights"? Ok maybe the people in Occupy movement. So let me say it this way: Who in the govt gives a crap about "rights", apart from pretending to do so to scam some votes? btw, what is "finded"
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Anyone got any kind of argument as to why this publicly finded prick has the right to do what he is doing?
Not sure to which person of the several possible from that article you are referring but... You mean based solely and entirely on a posting on a site where the entire purpose of the site is to refute anything and everything associated with "global warming"? Then no. No more so then I am going to start treating a serious health condition based on a single site that claims a certain homeopathic remedy is proven to cure for it. There are long standing scientifically proven reasons for adjusting data. Any data (not just weather data.) That says nothing about whether the data in this case was correctly adjusted. But the article you posted makes no comment about that either - so it is either alarmist or ignorant. Or both.
I am refering to Hansen. And if you think adjustments are valid then read again: "The graph below alternates between the 1999 GISS graph and the current version" It is comparing his 1999 adjustments to his current adjustments. So whats happened, something suddenly occured to render the old adjustments insufficient? Yeah, there was such a thing, it was 10 years of the planet failing to warm. --edit-- Oh, this is the same Hansen wo received $750k from George Soros for the 'politicisation of science'. Guess what he then did?
============================== Nothing to say.
-
A Reconstruction Of Unadjusted US Temperatures[^] Anyone got any kind of argument as to why this publicly funded prick has the right to do what he is doing?
============================== Nothing to say.
Hmmm. 1. Following The Paper Trail Of Mike’s Nature Trick[^] 2. NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade[^] - Watts up with that? 3. A Reconstruction Of Unadjusted US Temperatures[^] I suppose in some Carrollian Universe, telling us 3 times would make this true. However, back in the real world, Anthony Watts points out in the link above: ... 1998 and 1934 have swapped positions for the 'warmest year'. 1934 went down by about 0.3°C while 1998 went up by about 0.4°C for a total of about 0.7°C... In fairness, most of this is the fault of NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson, who have applied new adjustments in the form of USHCN2 (for US data) and GHCN3 (to global data). These adjustments are the primary source of this revisionism. I.E., nothing to do with Hansen at all. He also remarks: As Steve McIntyre often says: "You have to watch the pea under the thimble with these guys". Yeh, publishing papers (to one of which Watts provided station siting data) on their revised methodology for review, and giving over a year's notice of the impending changes, before 'springing' them on an unsuspecting public. You really have to watch that luminous pea under the glass thimble. :rolleyes:
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Anyone got any kind of argument as to why this publicly finded prick has the right to do what he is doing?
Not sure to which person of the several possible from that article you are referring but... You mean based solely and entirely on a posting on a site where the entire purpose of the site is to refute anything and everything associated with "global warming"? Then no. No more so then I am going to start treating a serious health condition based on a single site that claims a certain homeopathic remedy is proven to cure for it. There are long standing scientifically proven reasons for adjusting data. Any data (not just weather data.) That says nothing about whether the data in this case was correctly adjusted. But the article you posted makes no comment about that either - so it is either alarmist or ignorant. Or both.
jschell wrote:
There are long standing scientifically proven reasons for adjusting data
Especially when legitimate criticisms are levelled at station siting, station relocation, instrument change, time of observation difference, etc. The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) provides the land station temperature data sets used by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Unfortunately, NCDC scientists constantly revise their adjustment methodologies in the light of constructive criticism. This, of course, is then reflected in the GISS analyses, and hated 'Loonie Left' Hansen is accused of 'fudging' the figures by the 'Rabid Right'. The truth is that all the data and computer code are available for download (from NCDC and GISS), and all the methodologies are explained on line, with reference to appropriate academic papers. The lukewarmers and skeptics have been all over the statistical adjustments for years, and nobody has found any process designed to raise the temperatures to support Global Warming.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
I am refering to Hansen. And if you think adjustments are valid then read again: "The graph below alternates between the 1999 GISS graph and the current version" It is comparing his 1999 adjustments to his current adjustments. So whats happened, something suddenly occured to render the old adjustments insufficient? Yeah, there was such a thing, it was 10 years of the planet failing to warm. --edit-- Oh, this is the same Hansen wo received $750k from George Soros for the 'politicisation of science'. Guess what he then did?
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
And if you think adjustments are valid then read again: "The graph below alternates between the 1999 GISS graph and the current version"
Which suggests that either you didn't read what I said, didn't understand it or are not aware of the valid scientific reasons to do that. Reasons that apply to data collection regardless of what the data is. And again the link discusses none of that. So again it either represents ignorance or is intended to be alarmist. And again this has nothing to do with whether the adjustments are correct or not. The link doesn't in fact discuss why the adjustments are in error but just implicitly implies that they are. That isn't science. It is ideology. Nothing else.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
It is comparing his 1999 adjustments to his current adjustments. So whats happened, something suddenly occured to render the old adjustments insufficient?
I suggest you study statistical analysis extensively along with doing some extensive real world experience in collecting data which originates from a source that produces very large volumes of data points. Then in between 2 years and 10 you will be able to answer that question yourself. It would take even less time to see such adjustments made even if you didn't understand why.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
And if you think adjustments are valid then read again: "The graph below alternates between the 1999 GISS graph and the current version"
Which suggests that either you didn't read what I said, didn't understand it or are not aware of the valid scientific reasons to do that. Reasons that apply to data collection regardless of what the data is. And again the link discusses none of that. So again it either represents ignorance or is intended to be alarmist. And again this has nothing to do with whether the adjustments are correct or not. The link doesn't in fact discuss why the adjustments are in error but just implicitly implies that they are. That isn't science. It is ideology. Nothing else.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
It is comparing his 1999 adjustments to his current adjustments. So whats happened, something suddenly occured to render the old adjustments insufficient?
I suggest you study statistical analysis extensively along with doing some extensive real world experience in collecting data which originates from a source that produces very large volumes of data points. Then in between 2 years and 10 you will be able to answer that question yourself. It would take even less time to see such adjustments made even if you didn't understand why.
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008. Clearly they did. It was 10 years of lack of warming. Oh, by the way, the CRU data set shows the ten years of lack of warming by the way. Clearly they have different reasons than Hansen and didnt change their adjustments. Perhaps it is called honesty.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008. Clearly they did. It was 10 years of lack of warming. Oh, by the way, the CRU data set shows the ten years of lack of warming by the way. Clearly they have different reasons than Hansen and didnt change their adjustments. Perhaps it is called honesty.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008
Out of curiosity have you ever bothered to look into the reasoning behind the adjustments? That sounds like the kind of question these scientists would be rather happy to answer, rather than constant condemnation, harassment and demands for access to readily available data.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008
Out of curiosity have you ever bothered to look into the reasoning behind the adjustments? That sounds like the kind of question these scientists would be rather happy to answer, rather than constant condemnation, harassment and demands for access to readily available data.
-
Hmmm. 1. Following The Paper Trail Of Mike’s Nature Trick[^] 2. NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade[^] - Watts up with that? 3. A Reconstruction Of Unadjusted US Temperatures[^] I suppose in some Carrollian Universe, telling us 3 times would make this true. However, back in the real world, Anthony Watts points out in the link above: ... 1998 and 1934 have swapped positions for the 'warmest year'. 1934 went down by about 0.3°C while 1998 went up by about 0.4°C for a total of about 0.7°C... In fairness, most of this is the fault of NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson, who have applied new adjustments in the form of USHCN2 (for US data) and GHCN3 (to global data). These adjustments are the primary source of this revisionism. I.E., nothing to do with Hansen at all. He also remarks: As Steve McIntyre often says: "You have to watch the pea under the thimble with these guys". Yeh, publishing papers (to one of which Watts provided station siting data) on their revised methodology for review, and giving over a year's notice of the impending changes, before 'springing' them on an unsuspecting public. You really have to watch that luminous pea under the glass thimble. :rolleyes:
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
ict558 wrote:
These adjustments are the primary source of this revisionism
Why are the new adjustments different to the old, and why doesnt CRUs series show the same as Hansens since it uses the GHCN set? Perhaps the 'most of it' isnt that much compared to what Hansen then ads himself.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008. Clearly they did. It was 10 years of lack of warming. Oh, by the way, the CRU data set shows the ten years of lack of warming by the way. Clearly they have different reasons than Hansen and didnt change their adjustments. Perhaps it is called honesty.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008.
Wrong. What I am stating is that the link posted doesn't address why they changed. Only that they did. The first is not the same as the second.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Clearly they did. It was 10 years of lack of warming.
Wrong. Wrong not because your conclusion itself is wrong but rather that what you posted does not lead to that conclusion.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Oh, by the way, the CRU data set shows the ten years of lack of warming by the way. Clearly they have different reasons than Hansen and didnt change their adjustments. Perhaps it is called honesty.
Ridiculous nonsense in the context of the link that you posted. Even more ridiculous than the link itself. If you want to challenge science then the best way to do it is scientifically. Neither your statement nor the link have anything to do with science.
-
No, I havent. I am sure they would be as valid as Hansen using satelite images at night to adjust for UHI; ie, questionable. (Given that a temp station can be badly sitede AND no where near street lights)
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
No, I havent.
Obviously. And just as obvious the link you posted doesn't bother to do that either.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
I am sure they would be as valid as Hansen using satelite images at night to adjust for UHI; ie, questionable. (Given that a temp station can be badly sitede AND no where near street lights)
You are of course free to believe anything you want. But if you (or anyone) wish to claim that the scientific process is flawed then you must actually demonstrate that based on the scientific process. Neither your statments nor the link have anything to do with the scientific process.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
No, I havent.
Obviously. And just as obvious the link you posted doesn't bother to do that either.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
I am sure they would be as valid as Hansen using satelite images at night to adjust for UHI; ie, questionable. (Given that a temp station can be badly sitede AND no where near street lights)
You are of course free to believe anything you want. But if you (or anyone) wish to claim that the scientific process is flawed then you must actually demonstrate that based on the scientific process. Neither your statments nor the link have anything to do with the scientific process.
Nothing to do with belief, thats how Hansen adjusts for UHI. And it sucks. You asked me to refute it on a scientific basis but his methods barely deserve a refutation of scientific quality. Go to the surface stations web site and look at the placing of them. You will clearly see how 'scientific' Hansens adjustments are.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008.
Wrong. What I am stating is that the link posted doesn't address why they changed. Only that they did. The first is not the same as the second.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Clearly they did. It was 10 years of lack of warming.
Wrong. Wrong not because your conclusion itself is wrong but rather that what you posted does not lead to that conclusion.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Oh, by the way, the CRU data set shows the ten years of lack of warming by the way. Clearly they have different reasons than Hansen and didnt change their adjustments. Perhaps it is called honesty.
Ridiculous nonsense in the context of the link that you posted. Even more ridiculous than the link itself. If you want to challenge science then the best way to do it is scientifically. Neither your statement nor the link have anything to do with science.
You suggested they were valid so I was replying to what you said not the article. But if you want to back out of answering the quesiton then I wont stop you. And yes, what I cobcluded is my conclusion, naturally. :)
jschell wrote:
Neither your statement nor the link have anything to do with science.
Neither has much of what is produced by these scientists, as can be seen by their email conversations. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
ict558 wrote:
These adjustments are the primary source of this revisionism
Why are the new adjustments different to the old, and why doesnt CRUs series show the same as Hansens since it uses the GHCN set? Perhaps the 'most of it' isnt that much compared to what Hansen then ads himself.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Why are the new adjustments different to the old
Were you really interested, you would have used the links to GHCN-M v3[^] [PDF] and USHCN-M v2[^] to read up on the nature of the changes.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
why doesnt CRU's series show the same as Hansen's since it uses the GHCN set?
Because CRU augments a subset of GHCN-M with other datasets, and each processes their data differently?
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Perhaps the 'most of it' isnt that much compared to what Hansen then adds himself.
Let me quote Steven Mosher, co-author of 'The Crutape Letters' and an active leader in the effort to get open access to the data and code underlying climate science: "If people thought that the GISS approach was deeply flawed, they are deeply wrong." He and others have each developed their own code to perform the GISS process. By reading and re-reading the description in the IPCC report, and correcting their misconceptions, they have confirmed the GISS results. They certainly have discovered no sleight-of-hand. It takes longer than eyeballing two graphs and shouting 'fraud', and it is not as much fun as pillorying Hansen.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
Nothing to do with belief, thats how Hansen adjusts for UHI. And it sucks. You asked me to refute it on a scientific basis but his methods barely deserve a refutation of scientific quality. Go to the surface stations web site and look at the placing of them. You will clearly see how 'scientific' Hansens adjustments are.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Nothing to do with belief, thats how Hansen adjusts for UHI. And it sucks.
Personal opinion. It has nothing to do with science.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
You asked me to refute it on a scientific basis but his methods barely deserve a refutation of scientific quality
Utter nonsense. And I suspect it it a personal bias which is not based on actual knowledge of statistical knowledge nor analysis of the data methodology represented in the link given that you haven't actually presented any arguments of that.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Go to the surface stations web site and look at the placing of them. You will clearly see how 'scientific' Hansens adjustments are.
What part of my previous posts did you not understand? I am NOT commenting on the validity of the methodology. I am commenting on the link and your comments. Neither of those provide any actual scientific evidence that there is an actual problem with the methodology involved. Both you and the author of that link might as well claim that there is a problem because the last astrology reading that you had said so.
-
You suggested they were valid so I was replying to what you said not the article. But if you want to back out of answering the quesiton then I wont stop you. And yes, what I cobcluded is my conclusion, naturally. :)
jschell wrote:
Neither your statement nor the link have anything to do with science.
Neither has much of what is produced by these scientists, as can be seen by their email conversations. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
You suggested they were valid
Perhaps that is your problem. You are not actually reading what is written but rather what you think is written. I did NOT claim it was valid.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Neither has much of what is produced by these scientists, as can be seen by their email conversations.
Which has nothing at all to do with the link nor what I have posted since then.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Why are the new adjustments different to the old
Were you really interested, you would have used the links to GHCN-M v3[^] [PDF] and USHCN-M v2[^] to read up on the nature of the changes.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
why doesnt CRU's series show the same as Hansen's since it uses the GHCN set?
Because CRU augments a subset of GHCN-M with other datasets, and each processes their data differently?
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Perhaps the 'most of it' isnt that much compared to what Hansen then adds himself.
Let me quote Steven Mosher, co-author of 'The Crutape Letters' and an active leader in the effort to get open access to the data and code underlying climate science: "If people thought that the GISS approach was deeply flawed, they are deeply wrong." He and others have each developed their own code to perform the GISS process. By reading and re-reading the description in the IPCC report, and correcting their misconceptions, they have confirmed the GISS results. They certainly have discovered no sleight-of-hand. It takes longer than eyeballing two graphs and shouting 'fraud', and it is not as much fun as pillorying Hansen.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
ict558 wrote:
"If people thought that the GISS approach was deeply flawed, they are deeply wrong."
Lets look at Hansens methods are: 1) UHI adjustments using night time satellite images showing artificial light density. While this is an indication of the degree a region is urbanised it does not answer the positioning of individual stations. If a station is badly sited locally, ie above concrete or tarmac. Or near a source of heat, then the density of street lights in an area a few square miles around it is not going to show that. 2) Hansen uses a 1500 mile smothing algorithym so that the temperatures of a particular station get applied to a vast area. If you look at his colour temperature map you might ask yourself why Greenland is 5 degrees hotter. The answer is because the station data applied to the 15000 mile region comes from a station at an airport. A station in a low density area but regularly impacted by jet exhaust. 3) Station selection has also caused alarm. Over the last 20 years less and less stations are used to compose the data set, favouring lower altitude and lower lattitude stations and stations in urbanised environments, such as airports. A number of papers have been published which attempt to show that this is of no concern. However it does leave a question as to why stations have been deselected. When you add all that together I have very little faith in his product. Tell me, have you ever looked at raw station data from around the world?
============================== Nothing to say.