Defiling The Past

19 Responses to Defiling The Past

1. tckev says:

   October 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm

   Aahh the past!
   They don’t rewrite it like that anymore!

   Reply
2. physicist says:

   October 22, 2012 at 2:03 am

   Emperor without clothes, they are anxiously awaiting your papers on your new data analysis and old newspaper articles at the AGU and APS meetings.

   Or are you still a ball-less wonder with no guts to display your wisdom in a presentation in public at real science meetings?

   Reply
   • maguro says:

     October 22, 2012 at 2:12 am

     So, uh, you are OK with retroactively adjusting temperatures 80 years after the fact? You think this is good science?

     Reply
   • Will Nitschke says:

     October 22, 2012 at 2:48 am

     I’d love to see *their* papers or algorithms, that explain WTF they are doing with their adjustments…

     Also I’d like to see less of imbeciles like Kevin Trenberth’s (one of those IPCC ‘star’ scientists) doing less citing of random weather events as ‘evidence for’ AGW. That’s why the historical record, newspaper reports, etc., is so important in questioning this nonsense. Steve does an amazing job by drawing attention to this material.

     Reply
     • Me says:

       October 22, 2012 at 3:04 am

       Will, the phyescyst just wants to see the pal reviewers do their thingy just like Climate Gate. 😆

       Reply
     • Will Nitschke says:

       October 22, 2012 at 3:40 am

       Even so called “Pal Review” is advantageousness IF it lets sceptical researchers deconstruct the methods involved and question them or find error in them. However, I suspect you will not see a peer reviewed paper on this because the adjustments appear rather indefensible at this stage.

       Reply
     • Me says:

       October 22, 2012 at 3:49 am

       Just like the white washes we’ve seen?

       Reply
   • stevengoddard says:

     October 22, 2012 at 3:29 am

     Are you looking to become spam? You have degenerated to mindless content-free ad homs.

     Reply
     • Me says:

       October 22, 2012 at 3:47 am

       I think you may have spammed him before under a different name and IP.

       Reply
     • Brian G Valentine says:

       October 22, 2012 at 3:50 am

       That “gutless wonder” shit has a familiar ring, doesn’t it.

       Reply
     • Me says:

       October 22, 2012 at 3:53 am

       Yeah he does.

       Reply
3. Brian G Valentine says:

   October 22, 2012 at 3:34 am

   Of all fruits and vegetables, watermelons seem to have multiplied dramatically under conditions of fake global warming

   Reply
4. physicist says:

   October 22, 2012 at 10:56 am

   @ Will,

   “because the adjustments appear rather indefensible at this stage.”

   Let’s see now. Wherever you live, is it usually hotter in the morning or in the afternoon? If you always checked your thermometer in the afternoon for your daily reading would its reading by higher or lower? If you always made your thermometer reading in the afternoon, and then changed to always making your reading in the morning, I think you’d have to correct your value from the morning UPWARDS to correspond to those daily readings you have always taken in the afternoon.

   Its called the “T observation” effect, where T = time. That is very defensible. It is very clearly stated.

   I do find it so amusing that those no-good, lying, sneaking, money-grubbing, scientists have made all these erroneous “changes” to the data, and have told everyone what they have done, why they have done it, and put it out there (though you can’t seem to find it) for everyone to see. I would say that sounds kind of stupid to me, if their lone objective was to cook the books to fool everyone, doesn’t it?

   Seems to me that would be like the bank robbers advertising what bank and when they were going to rob?

   Reply
   • Will Nitschke says:

     October 22, 2012 at 11:42 am

     This sounds like deranged gibberish. Are you on medication?

     Reply
   • stevengoddard says:

     October 22, 2012 at 11:55 am

     You have no idea what you are talking about.

     Reply
5. physicist says:

   October 22, 2012 at 11:48 am

   Since you are into newspaper articles as scientific evidence of not historical change:

   “Climate­-driven changes are already evident over the last few decades for severe thunderstorms, for heavy precipitation and flash flood­ing, for hurricane activity, and for heatwave, drought and wild­-fire dynamics in parts of North America.”

   So says Munich Re, the top reinsurer in a new report.

   Do they know what they are talking about, or are they blowing smoke up our asses in order to raise rates and rip us off like the capitalist thieves at AIG, Goldman-Sachs, and all the other big banks in the housing bubble?

   Reply
   • chris y says:

     October 22, 2012 at 2:24 pm

     Well, Risk Management Solutions jacked up re-insurance rates based on a 5 year prediction of increased hurricane activity provided by 4 ‘experts’ in an afternoon of tea and crumpets in the Caribbean, just a few weeks after Katrina.

     The prediction was not just wrong, but Hansenesque in its wrongness.
     The ‘experts’ claimed to be bewildered about how RMS planned to use their prediction!

     For RMS, it was a complete success. Never let a crisis go to waste, as they say.

     Now tell us all why Munich Re would care about checking the veracity of a scientific ‘claim’ that results in BAU profits if it is right, and windfall profits if it is wrong?

     Reply
   • Will Nitschke says:

     October 22, 2012 at 8:03 pm

     OK let me get this straight… evil mega corporations are in some sort of big oil conspiracy that funds the global warming denial machine. Except when evil mega corporations jack up their prices to take advantage of a stupid scare, then evil mega corporations are possessed of much wisdom….

     Reply
6. John Mathon says:

   October 23, 2012 at 4:12 pm

   It seems to me if someone is saying the unadjusted record needs to be adjusted that this is something that needs to be thoroughly vetted and explained. Real examples have to be shown of how the adjustments actually reflect real world changes and why. Someone should be able to document why so many thermostats need to be adjusted and by such large amounts to push temperatures in the past down an average of 1F.

   The claim is that the pair wise algorithm which is used by NOAA and others detects location changes of thermometers. Can we have proof that at least in many of these “adjustments” there was a thermometer movement. Also if thermometers were moved was it because of HI effect? More importantly do we know that placement of thermometers in the past was done in a systematically biased way compared to today that resulted in measuring temperatures systematically over the entire United States warmer by 1F than today’s measurements? That seems unlikely that such a coordinated poor placement would be made compared to the last 50 years. It seems more likely that over time the placement of thermometers is about the same quality as is in the past. Meaning that overall the adjustments should be zero summing not showing a systematic need to suppress temperatures reported in the past.

   Reply