OMG they actually are saying that if you use unadjusted temperature records, and I must quote, “you end up with more global warming, not less”.
The first part is almost as bad.
“The net effect of adjustments is to actually reduce the amount of global warming we’ve observed”
Somebody actually seems to think the temperature data changes the actual world.
“you end up with more global warming, not less”
I actually thought it was you making a terrible claim, but it actually seems like this Hausfather fellow has lost his mind. Now I must do some research, because this is such total horseshit, there must be some error involved.
Ah, it’s Zeke Hausfather they are quoting. This explains how they can be so terribly wrong. That fucking tool is a source of really bad information, and really bad adjustments to the past, and I can prove this with out a shadow of a doubt. No wonder this political fact checking organization is repeating horseshit as fact. I knew somebody didn’t do the required fact checking on this matter.
Don’t be a fucking moron. Now you are trying to actually do what you are accusing me of, but your pretense is idiotic. New evidence from proxies, old satellite films, paper records, ice cores, lake sediments, sea floor cores, all kinds of new data giving more infomation about the past is always happening.
That isn’t what the adjustments are about, which you would fucking know if you actually knew anything about the issue. Nobody is fucking changing the past temperature readings based on new evidence, far from it. And it isn’t even changing the data, it’s blending it up, and “adjusting” the large regional results, which OK it actually is changing the data presented. (they aren’t going into the old records and actually changing the weather records)
Why the fuck would anyone change the past temperature readings? And why would they change them over and over and over? That’s the real question, which I doubt FOX news has asked. (I don’t watch FOX news)
But to claim I don’t understand the issue makes you look like a moron.
Not that it matters, but both politifact and factcheck agree that you’re ridiculously (politifact) and undeniably wrong, but don’t let that sway you. You keep going.
I can show you undeniable proof that Zeke is full of shit, and it will not matter.
I can show you “adjustments” to past weather records, or rather data being displayed as fact, that simply does not match the records, and it will not matter.
The only thing that matters, is that those who claim it is warming faster than ever before are right. 100% right. No exceptions. They have never made any errors.
Before they adjusted the data they were right. And every time they change the data they show you, they are right. No matter how much they change the data they show you, they are always right.
No worries. I know the deal. I’m good with where we are leaving things.
If the fact that not one, but two completely independent, non-partisan groups who have no incentive to lie, and every incentive to get to the bottom of things, agree that not only are you wrong, but your claim is absolutely without any merit whatsoever doesn’t sway you, I’m not going to keep attacking that windmill.
Anyone who stumbles on this thread from a google search, or some such method, is free to follow those links to their well reasoned and researched conclusions and can compare those to your argument of “Nuh uh!”
Hahaha now you are saying I made a claim. Priceless.
I objected to your claim, but somehow you think it’s my claim. I love it.
I’m telling straight up, if the measurements are bogus (which is why they get adjusted), then the measurements are bogus. Adjusting them to make them “correct”, or not adjusting them, has no effect on the climate at all. The only thing it changes, is what people claim is a record of changes in temperatures, at locations around the planet. Those claims change all the time.
Certainly if you want to take a record of the weather, and later use it for “climate science”, and you know that the record is shit, like because station moves, instrument changes, UHI effects, trees grew over the sensors, somebody added an air conditioner next to it, or a giant ass international airport was built around it, then you got to adjust the data, to use it for climate data. Or not use it at all.
It’s how and why the adjustments are made that is the issue. At least for science that is the issue. Nobody wants to base their life’s work on bad data. If the data keeps getting changed, it’s researchers that are really getting ass fucked by the changes.
The 2013 changes by the NCDC totally fucked everybody who had used their data for papers, because it made everybody “wrong” when they changed all the data. That they removed the ability to use the “previous data” was just a reach around during the ass fucking they gave everyone.
It’s the same for GISS, when they change the data they present, it makes all the old papers look wrong, because now those papers have “the wrong data” used in them. Hell, Hansen himself looks like a fraud or something if you compare his old papers with the latest version of “the data”, because his papers look like he is wrong.
That’s buying into what I consider the worst part of all this adjustment shit. Accusing somebody of deliberately and intentionally committing scientific fraud. Saying it’s all “a lie”, or that “they are liars and they know it”, which you can’t even know. It’s bullshit.
Like with this Zeke character from Berkeley. He’s so full of shit, but I don’t think he is a liar, I think he is misinformed, some sort of idiot about certain things, and he probably got fed the bullshit from somebody else, who also believed it. Repeating something that just isn’t true does not mean you are a liar. That happens all the fucking timer, it’s called ignorance.
Hurling charges of fraud and deception is strong language, it’s a serious charge, and it’s way beyond the scope of this topic, unless you count it as just one more thing that makes me so sick of this global warming bullshit.
Except you’re not sick of it. You know that, right? You love this stuff, and you love being angry about it, and you love arguing about it, and you love–yes–trolling about it.
Let’s take a break from name calling and look at some interesting questions regarding adjusting data:
1 - What methods were used to adjust the data? I assume some sort of statistical method or computer simulation or something.
2 - Given the complexity of the climate and our lack of knowledge about how all of the pieces dynamically influence each other, can we feel confident that the adjustments are correct?
3 - If our incomplete models/stats are used to adjust the data, and then the data is used to confirm the models/stats, are we in circular territory?
Have you checked online already? Some of what you are asking is easy to find, but I advise doing some homework before getting into it, it’s very complicated, and very contentious.
No, they don’t even know I exist, much less ever said I was wrong. I called horseshit on your claim, which is self evident, it can’t ever be right.
That is false, it’s the sort of thing that can’t ever be right. Of course you will never admit making a single mistake, about anything. It’s a cult like belief system that never even considers that anyone in the cult leadership could ever be wrong, about anything. This is self evident. The extreme irony is, that before the adjustments (the latest was in 2013), according to the people who MADE THE ADJUSTMENTS, the data was wrong. But “now it’s OK”, so in essence up until they changed it, they were wrong all along.
That is a claim that can’t be correct. You don’t even need to consider the data or the changes to the data. Let’s look at another example of this sort of horrific logic.
See? Now the claim is if we find data about the past, it can actually “make climate change … worse”, which is just such ridiculous logic, it’s hard to imagine it, that the person making the claim actually believes what they are saying. Obviously it’s poor writing, they are not expressing the concept correctly.
Certainly what they are trying to convey is the idea that “the measurements show different things, depending on how we change the measurements, after the fact”, something nobody would dispute. (OK somebody somewhere will, but you get the idea)
So if that was what the claim was, then it would be believable, logical, it makes sense. “If we change the data it shows less warming, if we use the non-adjusted data, the actual data, it shows more warming for parts of the world, but it shows the US is cooling, not warming”, which is what they are actually saying. That is the factual unbiased story they got from their sources, that is what they actually want to say. Of course the sources they asked are the people who made the changes.
It’s like asking Enron to explain the accounting problems, when an ex-Enron employee claims they are cooking the books. “Enron reports that in fact, if they hadn’t adjusted the books, the profits would be even higher than what is shown”, and why would they bother to look any further? The people who changed the books claim the changes are perfect and right. They make the data “more true”.
So somebody notes that the raw data doesn’t show the warming the adjusted data does, but the fact checkers ask the people who did the adjustments, and then declare the case closed. Is there a single skeptic or third party involved in their fact checking? Did the unbiased organizations do any checking on their own? Of course not.
If they did, they would be looking into it a lot more at the moment.
And even a cursory look at this issue reveals huge problems, things that can not be handwaved away, or explained by the simplistic reasoning Zeke and other use to simply alter every last bit of data.
Suppose a group discovers the ruins of a previously unknown concentration camp and mass execution facility inside the boundaries of Nazi Germany, one so secret, no one knew it was there. Evidence shows a million people were killed there. Why would it be wrong to say, “This makes the holocaust worse.” It makes it worse than anyone had known.
So, similarly, if evidence is found that global temperatures have been rising faster than we had thought, why would it be wrong to say, “Global warming is worse?”
I might accept this, but I’m having serious trouble with the idea that you can’t comprehend what the actual meaning of the phrase is. You seem to be imagining that they don’t know what the meaning of the phrase is, and that’s absurd.
Okay, great. Problem solved, debate over. That’s what they’re saying, you figured it out, and it makes sense now. I fully expect never to hear you raise this issue again.
I never raised it in the first place, which you might know if you actually read the previous postings. I also didn’t raise the objections to the issue, but I did point out several gaping holes in the pat answer, which of course you avoided responding to.
It’s not just that that’s what they are saying, it’s that it’s so obviously what they are saying that anyone pretending to believe otherwise would have to be either incredibly dumb or incontrovertibly attempting to obfuscate the real issues. Either way, debating them is silly.