You really can’t make this stuff up. Why bother to take measurements at all, if you are going to alter the results to match your theory?
Or perhaps Mosher is secretly on our side? He is openly admitting the data tampering is occurring.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming! Please help with a gift by clicking the button below.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Vegieman on Skynet Becomes Self-Aware
- Jeff L. on Skynet Becomes Self-Aware
- czechlist on Skynet Becomes Self-Aware
- conrad ziefle on Skynet Becomes Self-Aware
- Robert Austin on Red Hot Germany
Archives
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
He just dosn’t understand what he is talking about.
“Why bother to take measurements at all”
Because they need something to adjust and with numbers they can look sciency. Plus he is being paid to adjust them; no numbers no money.
He calls it data adjustment, you more accurately call it tampering, and I call it molesting the data because I think that fits better for several unscientific reasons.
Moshpit was hired by BEST as a frontman.
He has ZERO scientific training, only training in mindless yapping, twisting and squirming the words.
Once you realise that, you wouldn’t buy a used car from him.
How does alignment of the adjustments with CO2 prove the adjustments are correct? Surely that comment is total BS?
That’s the question.
Tony is there some context you could have possibly missed? Though I don’t agree or like Mosher I have to say I have judged him to be intelligent enough to not say something like that!
Think again!
So if we reduce CO2 levels to 300…..they will adjust temps down 1 1/2 degrees…..that’ll work! Considering we’ve increased less that that..it will put us back in another ice age…LOL
Problem is, no one will notice that either.
“I have judged him to be intelligent enough to not say something like that!”
You have WAY overjudged. !! ;-)
Assuming what you’re trying to prove is the standard MO of climate alarmists. That’s why they make the adjustments in the first place.
Don’t you love it when the other side of the debate proves us right? Admits that they are forcing the data to conform to their bogus hypotheses?
This seems absurd. The correlation of the temperature anomaly with delta CO2
would say more about the theory (though would still not be evidence).
However, what I expect he is saying is something like:
1) Based on our hypothesis we expect the temperature anomaly increase to be
proportional to CO2 increase.
2) We ‘correct’ (homogenise and adjust for TOBs and metrology) the
temperature field.
3) The corrections correlate well with the hypothesis therefore this is more
evidence in support of the hypothesis.
Which still sounds crazy. The correlation of ADJUSTMENTS with delta
CO2 looks like a smoking gun to me. It just stinks of infilling (~40% of
monthly station data is synthetic I think, according to our host) and
adjustments based on climate model output.
What it says is: “we know what answer we want”.
Let me correct that for you, we know what answer the UN, IPCC, Obama and the Globalisors want.
If the adjustment algorithm was independently derived so that the trend of the adjustments happened to coincidentally match the rise in CO2 concentration, then the remarks of Mr. Mosher could perhaps be justified. However, no one, including him, can be certain of this since the algorithm in question is not fully known, and thus the possibility that the algorithm deliberately achieves this match cannot be dismissed.
At the 12 minute mark, Dr Frank explains that supercomputers need not apply…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA
r squared correlation == 0.98 by random chance.
If it matched the anomaly yes, I’d agree – it would count as a ‘non-refutation’
of the underlying hypothesis. As scientists, we shouldn’t be looking for data
which support our hypothesis; instead we should be looking for data which
falsify it.
However, this is a correlation with the ADJUSTMENTS to the temperature
field. My hypothesis to explain this would be that the raw data is being
adjusted to match the theory.
Science means constantly walking a tightrope between blind faith and curiosity; between expertise and creativity; between bias and openness; between experience and epiphany; between ambition and passion; and between arrogance and conviction – in short, between an old today and a new tomorrow.
-Heinrich Rohrer
Looks like Mosher has issues facing a new day, and uses his tightrope to air his dirty and outdated wardrobe.
The alignment of aliens with adjustments proves the adjustments are correct
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/do-aliens-cause-global-warming-the-data-say-yes/
This is just jaw-dropping. The only thing that is accurate in all of their modeling, measuring and adjusting is the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and some of the raw temperature data. The rest is manipulated, often blatantly, to fit their narrative. Kafkaesque theater at its best!
Even the CO2 is suspect when you see how similar the various measuring stations show the CO2 levels and then compare that to the first CO2 Satellite measurements they released.
Notice how quiet that has gone.
Interesting. When you say “how quiet that has gone” are you referring to the frequency of panicky reports of rapidly increasing carbon dioxide levels?
Use this process at the roulette wheel and you’d only need an hour or so to become seriously rich.
Anthony has never fussed at me for linking graphs from here….so I posted the adjustment/CO2 graph over there….But he has fussed when I’ve linked to threads…
Proof AGW theory & IPCC are wrong has been hiding in plain sight. Demonstrated by ‘notch’ in Top-Of-Atmosphere radiation measurements, energy absorbed at low altitude by CO2 molecules is immediately redirected to water vapor molecules. Influence of CO2 compared to water vapor can be no more than the ratio of CO2 quantum mechanics line count*intensity to H2O quantum mechanics line count*intensity This ratio is approximately (71*0.0025) / (423*0.4) = 0.001 = 0.1%. CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Same applies to all other ghg which do not condense in the atmosphere. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
For anyone who still innocently believes that modern science is a Pure Process of Truth-Seeking Disinterested Researchers, read this: http://beta.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-cerutti-mastodon-20171222-htmlstory.html.
>>But to propose a site more than 100,000 years older was professional suicide. It would undermine the research and reputations of most archaeologists now studying the New World.
>>“If you claim something is that old, you get blasted,” Cerutti said, “which is why some archaeologists stopped working on sites like this. They didn’t want to get blasted.”<<
[…]
<<“Entrenched views are hard to shift for researchers who have built a reputation on them,” he said.<<
Adv – Thanks for the link. I relate the resistance from ‘established experts’ to the discovery CO2 has no significant effect on climate. But I recognize that it is not ‘proof’ because the evidence could have been caused by as yet undiscovered factors. I will henceforth refer to my findings as ‘compelling evidence’.