Global Climate Change Science News

[Seth]

Booker was discredited long ago with asbestos etc. They don't come any more crooked than Booker.

Booker is just the author of the article. You'd need to debunk the facts he cites for you to have any credibility.

[piscator]

Measured data is always adjusted before you do anything else with it. So if you have a problem with Least Squares, you have to show it's legitimate, else you're just stopped right there.

[Seth]

Measured data is always adjusted before you do anything else with it. So if you have a problem with Least Squares adjustment of a 3D dataset, you have to show it's legitimate, else you're stopped right there.

I'd say you have to show that there is a justifiable reason to fiddle with the data, and that the fiddling is not biased, before you can claim the fiddling makes the data more accurate.

I'd say that measured data doesn't need to be fiddled with right off, I'd say one should analyze the data according to what the data actually is, and only then try to resolve inconsistencies that may arise.

But what seems to have happened here is a systematic effort to manipulate the data to bias the temperature record upwards, which is fraud, which doesn't surprise me at all because of all the money that is at stake here. Those who perpetrate and support the AGW fraud stand to make lots and lots of money. Those who dissent are marginalized and driven out of the scientific community.

Follow the money.

[piscator]

Measured data is always adjusted before you do anything else with it. So if you have a problem with Least Squares, you have to show it's legitimate, else you're just stopped right there.

I'd say you have to show that there is a justifiable reason to fiddle with the data, and that the fiddling is not biased, before you can claim the fiddling makes the data more accurate.

That remark just shows how little you know about measuring. So I'm not going to devote much time here. Have a nice day.

[Seth]

Measured data is always adjusted before you do anything else with it. So if you have a problem with Least Squares, you have to show it's legitimate, else you're just stopped right there.

I'd say you have to show that there is a justifiable reason to fiddle with the data, and that the fiddling is not biased, before you can claim the fiddling makes the data more accurate.

That remark just shows how little you know about measuring. So I'm not going to devote much time here. Have a nice day.

Perhaps that's why people don't believe AGW zealots, when challenged they just hand-wave and stick their noses in the air and dismiss the hoi-polloi as being too ignorant to understand anything.

So tell us, is it impossible to "adjust" data in a dishonest way to deliberately skew the results to reach a pre-determined conclusion? I seem to recall a lot of survey errors constantly being discovered, including completely bogus original land surveys where the surveyor never even pulled a chain, but just drew lines on a map and made shit up. Seems that it is possible to "adjust" data improperly, incorrectly or fraudulently.

Shows how much YOU know about measurement...

[piscator]

Measured data is always adjusted before you do anything else with it. So if you have a problem with Least Squares, you have to show it's legitimate, else you're just stopped right there.

I'd say you have to show that there is a justifiable reason to fiddle with the data, and that the fiddling is not biased, before you can claim the fiddling makes the data more accurate.

That remark just shows how little you know about measuring. So I'm not going to devote much time here. Have a nice day.

Perhaps that's why people don't believe AGW zealots, when challenged they just hand-wave and stick their noses in the air and dismiss the hoi-polloi as being too ignorant to understand anything.

Sorry it doesn't meet your emotional needs, bro.


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

[Animavore]

Booker was discredited long ago with asbestos etc.

And Einstein's last published contribution to science was his approval of earth crust displacement and rejection of tectonic plate movement. I suppose that discredits his previous publications.

Guilt by association used to be de rigeur in law courts, but the various consorting squads have been disbanded decades ago. You are no longer considered to be a criminal on account of being seen, intentionally or inadvertently in the company with known criminals. Isn't it about time we stop judging the validity of a theory promoted by a person on the basis of other theories that are held by the same person, which are known to be discredited, and evaluate each on its own merits (or lack thereof) instead?

Booker isn't a scientist though. He's a journalist. And given his previous anti-science stances (for instace his stance against smoking causing cancer) we can legitimately dismiss the crank off-hand.

[Animavore]

Measured data is always adjusted before you do anything else with it. So if you have a problem with Least Squares, you have to show it's legitimate, else you're just stopped right there.

I'd say you have to show that there is a justifiable reason to fiddle with the data, and that the fiddling is not biased, before you can claim the fiddling makes the data more accurate.

That remark just shows how little you know about measuring. So I'm not going to devote much time here. Have a nice day.

Perhaps that's why people don't believe AGW zealots, when challenged they just hand-wave and stick their noses in the air and dismiss the hoi-polloi as being too ignorant to understand anything.

So tell us, is it impossible to "adjust" data in a dishonest way to deliberately skew the results to reach a pre-determined conclusion? I seem to recall a lot of survey errors constantly being discovered, including completely bogus original land surveys where the surveyor never even pulled a chain, but just drew lines on a map and made shit up. Seems that it is possible to "adjust" data improperly, incorrectly or fraudulently.

Shows how much YOU know about measurement...

Nice loaded question.

[Hermit]

Booker isn't a scientist though. He's a journalist. And given his previous anti-science stances (for instace his stance against smoking causing cancer) we can legitimately dismiss the crank off-hand.

Yes, you could - actually should - dismiss Booker as a crank offhand, but I think it is better to judge each argument on its merits. For instance, take Seth. I leave what I think of him to your imagination, and I consider almost everything he posts as piles of steaming, smelly shit, but every now and again he says something that is not. When he does so, I do not dismiss what he says out of hand because of what I think of him or because almost everything else he posts actually is steaming, smelly shit.

For example, at the defunct Richard Dawkins forum he asserted that fewer guns do not decrease the murder rate. Instead of dismissing the claim out of hand, I thought I'll have a look at that. The Australian gun buyback scheme of 1996 was a good spot to test it, and indeed, the anti-gun lobby crowed about statistics that murder by firearms declined by 70 or 80%. Great. On further investigation it turned out that the decades-long decline of murder in Australia had not changed one way or the other. The gradient was the same after the buyback as before. Seth might have been right for the wrong reason, but because I did not dismiss it out of hand I discovered that our anti-gun lobby was misleading us, intentionally or not. Consequently I revised my opinion about the efficacy of removing firearms for the purposes of reducing the murder rate. The matter is of course rather more complicated, but this thread is supposed to be about global climate change, so if anyone wants to pursue that topic, let's do that in the relevant section of this forum.

[Tero]

Booker was discredited long ago with asbestos etc. They don't come any more crooked than Booker.

Booker is just the author of the article. You'd need to debunk the facts he cites for you to have any credibility.

You do not get the article published, you get Booker here. Most articles are for paid readers of a journal.

But you do not need NASA, GISS, UK climate science or any of that stuff. You get the same warming trend from just 1500 reliable weather stations vs the 6000 available.

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitor ... tions.html

Less is more. Try least squares and Excel.

Booker article cited by Seth
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -ever.html

The Paul Homewood credited for exposing lies has ...0 peer reviewed papers on climate.

[Tero]

Homewood's credentials: knows how to use a calculator. No least squares mentioned.

Paul Homewood, a retired accountant turned climate historian, is an assiduous student of the Central England Temperature Record, the world’s longest continuous series of accurate readings. His graph, shown here, of the five-year running average going back to 1660 demonstrates that while the summers since 2006 have indeed got cooler, such short-term trends have happened many times before.
In January, the Met Office claimed that 2012 was the second wettest year on record, behind only 2000 – prompting claims that this must surely be evidence of climate change. However, as Mr Homewood points out, while records for the whole UK go back only to 1910, there are England and Wales figures that date from 1766, and they reveal that the wettest year was actually 1872, followed by 1767.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z3RGVFFOxb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Tero]

There are still a lot of numbers. 1500 stations for 355 days is a lot to average. You can take local data for three month periods, and there it looks like US summer temps have not changed a lot. Which is true.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-serie ... eyear=2000

In cold climate areas, it is the winter temps that have changed the most.

I cant find the other thread so here is the rebuttal to Booker "tampering"

[Seth]

Measured data is always adjusted before you do anything else with it. So if you have a problem with Least Squares, you have to show it's legitimate, else you're just stopped right there.

I'd say you have to show that there is a justifiable reason to fiddle with the data, and that the fiddling is not biased, before you can claim the fiddling makes the data more accurate.

That remark just shows how little you know about measuring. So I'm not going to devote much time here. Have a nice day.

Perhaps that's why people don't believe AGW zealots, when challenged they just hand-wave and stick their noses in the air and dismiss the hoi-polloi as being too ignorant to understand anything.

Sorry it doesn't meet your emotional needs, bro.


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

So, from the brief review of the wiki you cite, it seems that least squares is "described as an algebraic procedure for fitting linear equations to data."

This seems to me to say that it is a process for making linear equations fit the data by manipulating the data. Now, this might be applicable to something like surveying, where observational errors are bound to occur and the data is thought to be linear in the first place, such as the true distance between point A and point B, taking into consideration observational blunders and things like the curvature of the earth, as well as temperature effects on the air that affect the sighting.

However, what we're talking about here is temperature measurements, which may or may not be linear in nature. If the observed (reported) temperature is 14.24C, and that measurement was made 20 or two years ago, one would assume that margins of error for that instrument would have been taken into account at the time the measurement was taken so that the reported data would have already taken into account errors in the instrument or the reading thereof and therefore the recorded temperature of 14.24C is the true temperature.

Why then would those records need to be "adjusted" at all, after the fact, based on a "need" to make the data fit a linear equation. Temperature variation from day to day and location to location is not a linear function. It's a point measurement and no linear equation is required. An equation is a method of predicting a future data point based on past data points and their relationship to one another. But this assumes that the data is related in a linear fashion, which temperature records are not.

The temperature at a given place and time is what it is, and it varies according to a very large number of variables, which modern computer models have demonstrated are so many and varied that it's impossible to predict accurate what the temperature will be tomorrow, much less next week, much less next year much less a hundred years from now.

That's the fallacy of "climate science" and that's why the present "lull" in global warming is getting the Warmists in a tizzy and is causing them to engage in revisionist history by "adjusting" prior temperature records upwards, so that the slope of their linear averages is up instead of down, which is what the records actually show from the un-adjusted data.

In other words, while adjusting data may be appropriate in some present situations, such as surveying or gathering current data, adjusting old data that has presumably been adjusted already by those who originally gathered the data, makes it very, very easy to bias the conclusions however one wants them to be biased, in this case in favor of AGW, which unfortunately for the fraudsters, appears not to be happening anymore.

I'm certainly no mathematical expert, by any stretch of the imagination, but I am a quite logical and rational person, so you're going to have to explain to me in detail why it was necessary to "adjust" what I'm going to presume are already-adjusted true temperature records from the past so that they fit linear equations to the data that the scientists and politicians want to see today.

If you can come up with a plausible answer to post hoc data adjustment that precludes deliberate fraud as a possibility in this "adjustment" I'll be happy to consider it, but it sounds a lot like "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" smoke and mirrors to me.

[Seth]

Booker was discredited long ago with asbestos etc.

And Einstein's last published contribution to science was his approval of earth crust displacement and rejection of tectonic plate movement. I suppose that discredits his previous publications.

Guilt by association used to be de rigeur in law courts, but the various consorting squads have been disbanded decades ago. You are no longer considered to be a criminal on account of being seen, intentionally or inadvertently in the company with known criminals. Isn't it about time we stop judging the validity of a theory promoted by a person on the basis of other theories that are held by the same person, which are known to be discredited, and evaluate each on its own merits (or lack thereof) instead?

Booker isn't a scientist though. He's a journalist. And given his previous anti-science stances (for instace his stance against smoking causing cancer) we can legitimately dismiss the crank off-hand.

Why? Either his recitation of the data and the comments from skeptics is accurate or it is not. If you are alleging that he has fabricated either the data or the quotes, then it's up to you to prove this allegation.

As a journalist myself I know full well that my duty is to write an article based on facts and quotes which are stated accurately and are attributed properly as given to me. If credible sources give me information that can be verified by other credible sources it is my duty to report that information, even if it contradicts the conventional wisdom or some other expert's opinion. So long as I present the information as it was given to me and cite my sources, errors in the conclusions stated to me by others is not my responsibility. I report, you decide.

You are free to disbelieve anything you like, as am I and others who disbelieve the AGW propaganda.

But if you are disputing the accuracy of the article, you need to attack the data and the quotes from the sources or the sources themselves, because unless you can prove that he fabricated the quotes, you're attacking him with an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.

[Seth]

There are still a lot of numbers. 1500 stations for 355 days is a lot to average. You can take local data for three month periods, and there it looks like US summer temps have not changed a lot. Which is true.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-serie ... eyear=2000

In cold climate areas, it is the winter temps that have changed the most.

I cant find the other thread so here is the rebuttal to Booker "tampering"

Interesting video. Thanks for posting it. What's the answer to the question at the end: "Why would they do that?" (bogue the data upwards 3 percent)

Because NOAA is a government agency that is subject to political and economic pressure to advance the theory of global warming, that's why. Why 3 percent? Well, obviously so that somebody who is examining the raw data versus the adjusted data can't make a plausible claim of deliberate manipulation of the records. Subtle changes can be put off to various "innocent" factors, including making a mistake, as NOAA and the other AGW conspirators have already used as an excuse several times. They can't just completely fabricate data, they have to make their upwards revision look plausible while still skewing the conclusion in an upward direction.

Can you say "hockey stick graph fraud?"

If there is an intentional widespread conspiracy (even a loose one created by ideological bias rather than central planning) to nudge temperature records upwards, it's going to be subtle because of the small amount of difference between up, level, and down in long-term trends. Therefore straining at gnats over fractions of a degree in long-term temperature change is all they've got to "prove" their theory that we're all gonna die if we don't do something right away. "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" is the mantra over an easily disputable factually observed change in temperatures that now shows evidence of being subtly manipulated to a political end.

And that's all climate change skeptics are doing, disputing the conclusions that haven't panned out according to the supposedly definitive computer models climate scientists are so proud of...the ones in which the margin of error subsumes all possible temperature change less than a year into the future.

This AGW crap is all about power and control and very little else.

The climate changes. It always has and always will. It's been hotter, it's been colder, much colder, and none of the observed temperature excursions, even the ones with the potentially falsified adjustments, fall outside the long-term natural variations in planetary temperature.

Earth abides. We can get along fine without snow. The dinosaurs got along fine for hundreds of millions of years in a much hotter climate, one where subtropical plants flourished at the north pole. Sea levels have been higher and lower. 10,000 years ago sea levels were as much as 300 meters lower, as evidenced by villages of the period found 300 meters underwater in Puget Sound.

The hysteria doesn't match with the facts I'm afraid and whatever is happening, and why, is no emergency that requires, by way of example, destruction of the American coal industry and destruction of 60 percent of our power generating capacity in the next two years of Obama's reign.

It's all politics, power and control and very little more.