I like pie.
Needs to be said.
It’s basically what I said, only, more succinctly.
Brevity is the soul of wit, or something. I am therefore witless, yet still understand how water behaves, so I’m ahead of the game.
Also, whatever shall we do with the record highs and lack of snowfall we’re having here on the West Coast?
The adjustments are appropriate and, if anything, the unadjusted data makes the climate change even worse. Pants on fire
From the article:
“The net effect of adjustments is to actually reduce the amount of global warming we’ve observed since 1880 by about 20 percent,” Hausfather said. “Folks skeptical of temperature adjustments are welcome not to use them if they’d like, but you end up with more global warming, not less.”
Complete and absolute horseshit.
FX, you’re STILL a fucking idiot.
The topic of “adjustments” to the past data, as well as changes to much more recent temperature measurements, is huge, and there is absolutely no chance any discussion of it here, or even in GD, will make the slightest difference. The people who already made up their minds, in advance, that all adjustments are “perfect” and “needed”, or even worse, “there can not be any mistakes in the adjustments”, no amount of factual data, evidence or reason will penetrate in any way. Same for those who have looked at the data, spent years researching the old records, no amount of “expert opinion” or rationalizations will convince them that the past needs to be made much much colder, and the recent records warmer.
It’s like the Hockey stick, no amount of science is going to matter,
If it were an issue of actual science, there would be at least a chance, but it’s not about science at all.
So, my opinion has an independent, Pulitzer Prize winning, non partisan fact checking organization behind it which gave your opinion the lowest ranking of being entirely inaccurate and denotes that “The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.”
How does one square that circle?
You can say “the unadjusted data makes the climate change even worse” from now until eternity, it’s still a steaming pile of wrong. No adjustments, or unadjusted data, or any changes anyone makes to the records, none of it has any effect at all on climate change.
Changing the data can not make “the climate change” better, or worse, in any way. Please try and grasp this concept. NOAA or GISS can alter the living fuck out of the temperature data (and they do), and it has no effect at all on the actual real world. The actual climate, and the changes to climate, have nothing to do with adjustments to the temperature record. In fact, it is impossible for anyone to alter the climate by changing the historic record. It’s not possible.
Of course now that you realize why your statement (or the source of it) is complete horseshit, you must change your story, move the goalposts, anything other than admit it is a nonsensical claim. It can not even have a basis in reality, it’s completely false.
Anyone with a fucking working brain and logic realizes this. Changes to the temperature data, altering the history to create an illusion of warming, when there isn’t actually any warming, or not adjusting the data in any way, none of that will actually make “climate change” any better, or worse. In fact, it will not alter a single thing about the real world.
No changes to data, or drastic changes to the data, will not actually change the actual real world at all.
I know this may be hard to believe, but it is actually how reality works. The weather, the climate, the actual real world, does not change because somebody changes the data.
I hope this answers your question.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
In fact, it is impossible for anyone to alter the climate by changing the historic record. It’s not possible.
[/QUOTE]
Wait. What? I’m really trying to make any sense of what your argument here is, but I’m coming up empty. Do you think that scientists believe that their data changes history?
Seriously? You are taking the “I can’t follow your argument” tactic?
I doubt if I explain it again it will help. You claimed “the unadjusted data makes the climate change even worse”, and I say that is horseshit. It’s not even possible for that to be true.
You are the person who stated “the unadjusted data makes the climate change even worse”, and I pointed out that is complete horseshit. Adjusted, or not adjusted, the data doesn’t do a damn thing to the climate, the climate change, or anything else actually.
Why is that hard for you to grasp? Are you really not understanding why your claim is wrong?
If that’s true (and I actually don’t believe it is), but if it is true, then that organization is run by idiots. Or they didn’t check their sources. Something is wrong there.
But corrected data changes our understanding of the past. This happens all the time. There are still debates about dinosaur physiology, for instance: no one is claiming that the dinosaurs are or were “changing” because of these debates. They were always whatever they were. But if we discover, “Holy shit, we were wrong!” then the past as we know it has changed.
If we can find evidence of different patterns of climate in the past, then, yes, this could easily make climate change, today, worse than we had thought. It could also make it less bad.
Do you seriously have this degree of ignorance about the function of increased knowledge in historical subjects? If we learn that Abraham Lincoln had a serious genetic illness, do you really imagine that the medical historian who discovered this would be responsible for inflicting the ailment upon the President? (High treason! But it’s okay: we can cure the President again by burning all the historian’s papers!)
Wow, that’s the hill you want to die on? I will fully acknowledge that the data does not change the actual climate. The change in the climate is reflected in the data. And the moon is not made out of cheese, 2+2=4, the earth is round, and evolution happened.
When the data scientist who analyzed everything for politifact stated:
*“The net effect of adjustments is to actually reduce the amount of global warming we’ve observed since 1880 by about 20 percent,” Hausfather said. “Folks skeptical of temperature adjustments are welcome not to use them if they’d like, but you end up with more global warming, not less.” *
he was not claiming that the data changed the temperature.
But you knew that, and you’re just making a disingenuous argument to obfuscate that that this claim your making has been absolutely been given a rating of Pants on Fire. Politifact has no dog in this fight and it’s reputation (which is all it has) is entirely dependent on getting it correct.
How can you not believe that it is true? It’s right here. As linked several times now.
I reckon this is pointless.
Thanks for confirming for me that this is actually the argument he is making. I really thought I was misreading it, because no one could possibly make this terrible an argument in real life.
Changing “our understanding” by altering the data certainly can change our understanding. Of course one can ask the obvious question, if data is “corrected” in 2013, then that means up until then the data was not correct. Then to find that the data was “corrected” multiple times before that, our understanding does indeed change. Just not in the way some would demand it does.
Because of criticism of the way weather stations are being used for climate, an entire network of quality controlled stations were set up in 2004 in the US. So there could be no questioning the data, no way to evade the factual climate data collected.
Much to the surprise of some, the quality controlled data matches the Satellite data, and show cooling for the annual mean. And a lot of cooling for the winter trend.
Of course the other networks also show this, at which point the goal posts get moved a very long way. As in “well the US isn’t the entire world”, which isn’t the point at all. The point is the quality controlled data shows the satellite analysis is spot on, and that is the data that the alarmists claim isn’t valid, because it doesn’t show the warming they want it to show.
If the U.S. Climate Reference Network validates the recent USHCN data, and the claim is that it does, then there is a real problem for alarmists. Of course the record cold and snowy winters might be a clue, except the denial over that is epic as well.