the BEST adjustments of temperature
cartoonsbyjosh / 14 hours ago January 31, 2015
Josh writes:
There has been much discussion recently about the adjustments made to past temperatures: see Paul Homewood’s excellent posts on Paraguay, Bolivia and around the world; also from Shub; Brandon at WUWT and on his own blog; and a very readable summary by James Delingpole. All very interesting.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/all-of-paraguays-temperature-record-has-been-tampered-with/#more-12774
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/cooling-the-past-in-bolivia/
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/31/saturday-silliness-the-best-adjustments-of-temperature/
Jimmy Haigh. says:
January 31, 2015 at 7:07 am
And, as I said over at Bishop Hill, let’s not forget Steve Goddard’s contribution…
Ric Werme says:
January 31, 2015 at 9:58 am
Okay, but only if we also acknowledge Anthony, E.M. Smith (chiefio), Steve McIntyre, and all the others who uncovered the adjustments in 2009. Goddard is just the most obsessed with the topic.
............
Bruce Cobb says:
January 31, 2015 at 7:31 am
Temperature “adjustments” always go in the warming direction. It’s all just one part of the giant memeplex that is the Climatist Industry. No conspiracy is required, no special effort, except the willingness to set aside any inconvenient and bothersome moral scruples.
markstoval says:
January 31, 2015 at 7:38 am
From all appearances, BEST is simply a propaganda operation masquerading as science. There is no way to honestly say that they are simply guilty of observational bias. They are guilty of perverting science to support their political views.
..................
Joel O'Bryan says:
January 31, 2015 at 11:11 am
I asked myself how long does GISS and NCDC think they can get away with this unethical manipulation of the temperature data sets?
I realize that the answer is at least until January 21, 2017. Maybe longer if Hillary becomes President. There is a reason Obama advisor and econutter John Podesta is now her campaign manager.
I’m also guessing guys like Gavin Schmidt are losing sleep over the prospect of a GOP President in 2017. Their little data manip games will be over if that happens and the price to pay will be their jobs and reputations.
As an aside, understanding those temp adjustments in South America would explain the long-term sea ice trend in the Antarctic Southern Ocean.
................
John Whitman says:
January 31, 2015 at 12:46 pm
From article ‘How can we believe in ‘global warming’ when the temperature records providing the ‘evidence’ for that warming cannot be trusted?’ by James Delingpole30 Jan 2015 ( @ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/30/forget-climategate-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/ )
“[. . .]
Now the next thing the doubters among you will be thinking is: “Well these are reputable scientific institutions. They wouldn’t be making these [station temperature] adjustments without good reason.”
And I’d agree with you. That’s certainly what one would reasonably hope and expect.
But the odd thing is that no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming from any of the institutions which have been making these adjustments. Not from NASA GISS. Nor from NOAA, which maintains the dataset known as the Global Historical Climate Network. Nor from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which, with the Met Office, maintains the third of the world’s three surface data records, known as Hadcrut.
[. . .]”
What is the right question?
I think the right question is: “Is what we see here an open and objectively explained scientific behavior / process by NASA GISS, NOAA (GHCN) and MET/UEA-CRU?”
[iframe width="700" height="424" class="youtube-player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Nx8LAFSY3Ws?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" type="text/html"][/iframe]
If the answer is clearly no, then the next right question in logical sequence would be: ”What caused them to be like that?”
My understanding is that the answer to “Is what we see here an open and objectively explained scientific behavior / process by NASA GISS, NOAA (GHCN) and MET/UEA-CRU?” is clearly no.
My understanding is that the answer to the follow-up question ”What caused them to be like that?” is they have implemented consciously a philosophy of science that causes subjective values be the principle basis of the outcome of their work product.
|
