Every time we are on the verge of a breakthrough getting the message out to the press, one or more of a small group of skeptics steps up to the plate and wrecks the message.
A few days later they eat crow and apologize, but the damage is done, the Internet never forgets, and the press becomes gun shy. Why are they doing this?
Dear Steve, the satellite record measures a different quantity than the weather-station-based global mean temperature, so there is no good reason to think that their graphs and trends should agree. In other words, the disagreement between these two different types of datasets doesn’t imply that there is a mistake in either of them.
Aside from this flawed argument, you haven’t offered *any* other argument that would imply that the adjusted graphs are wrong and the graphs preferred by you are right. It’s just your emotions and prejudices and the rational content is zero.
I hope it is OK if I think that you are just one of millions of people – on both sides – with equally irrational and biased attitudes to all these questions, so these three paragraphs represent all the time I will dedicate to your blog post.
So Lubos is fine with GISS repeatedly adjusting the data outside of their own error bars, massively increasing warming in a way which conveniently matches their theory, and making it unrecognizable compared to previous versions of the temperature record – and says I am irrational for questioning it.
The adjustments above are outside of the error bars. The data and methodology is crap.
Forty years ago, NCAR showed no net global warming from 1900 to 1970. In the GISS temperature record, essentially all of the post-1940 cooling has disappeared.
In 1961, the global cooling consensus was unanimous – but Gavin knows better than the scientists who worked at the time.
Lubos is correct about one thing. Surface temperatures measure UHI. Satellites measure the temperature of the atmosphere. If you are examining the greenhouse effect, you want to measure the temperature of the atmosphere – not the asphalt.
Check out this nonsense from Lubos
Many skeptics’ adjustment-phobia unmasks their anti-scientific credentials
Whether or not you apply one of the specified major adjustments or two or none of them doesn’t visibly affect the resulting graph at all.
I am surely a “lukewarmer”, together with Steven Mosher, because the label of the full-fledged skeptics has been hijacked by anti-science nut jobs, indeed.
The Reference Frame: If done right, temperature adjustments are great
Lubos has no clue what he is talking about. The only decent temperature record is in the US, and it has been massively altered to cool the past.
The global surface temperature record is complete crap, with most of the land surface not covered, more than 50% of the data fake, and huge selective loss of rural stations since the 1970’s
Check out this whopper from Lubos.
The temperature record resulting from the weather stations differs from the graphs generated by the satellites – not by too much
Utter bullshit, Lubos. The divergence between Berkeley Earth and satellites is massive
Why a few skeptics are letting themselves be used like this is beyond my comprehension. The temperature record has been massively and successively altered across the planet, through replacement of rural data with urban data.
Lubos is focused on one aspect of the problem, and missing the forest for the trees. We have a great opportunity to finish this scam off, and a small group of academics are letting themselves be used to sabotage it. And then calling other skeptics “anti-science nut jobs”
Unbelievable.
Judy Curry simply does not understand the problem with the global temperature record, and how it has been altered.
The way the temperature record has been altered over time is through station selection and loss of rural stations. It used to look like this, when there were a lot of rural stations being used.
But eighty percent of GHCN stations have been lost since the 1970’s
Almost all of the remaining long term rural stations are in the US. The rest of the global temperature record has been contaminated by increasing the ratio of urban stations to rural stations.
The only meaningful large area temperature record on the planet is in the US, and it has been massively tampered with.
All recent US warming is due to infilling fake data
Judy is focused on the mathematical adjustments to the current data, and doesn’t understand the nature of the problem – the current station selection is skewed towards warming. There has been massive divergence between the surface record, satellites, and radiosonde.
Prior to the 1970’s, radiosonde and the surface temperature record matched – but loss of stations since the 1970’s has caused a massive divergence.
A classic science error is to launch into detailed math, before understanding the nature of the problem. More than 50% of the current surface temperature record is fake. How can anyone take it seriously?
It has been exactly one year since the New York Times announced the official end of snow.
One year later
The world’s most brilliant climate scientists say heavy snow is a thing of the past.
Hopefully their funding is a thing of the past.
When UCS isn’t blaming the demise of snow on global warming, they are blaming the snow on global warming
“Winters are becoming warmer and less snowy”
Global warming causes cold snowy winters.
These people don’t care about science. They just want to steal your money.
There is no scientific basis behind the EPA CO2 regs. Even if he actually believes in the global warming scam, US emissions cuts would be dwarfed by Asian increases. The whole point is to punish Americans, while pretending he is doing it for a greater good.
Self-loathing progressives submit happily to the abuse, at least until they understand that they are the intended targets, and that there are real consequences to behaving like total morons.
