AWG More date manipulation !

[rushmc 23]

If this is such a slam dunk deal, why do they play with the data??

Quote

Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/25/Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming

Quote

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.

At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.

At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.

Last year, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology made headlines in the liberal media by claiming that 2013 was Australia's hottest year on record. This prompted Australia's alarmist-in-chief Tim Flannery - an English literature graduate who later went on to earn his scientific credentials with a PhD in palaeontology, digging up ancient kangaroo bones - to observe that global warming in Australia was "like climate change on steroids."

One this is for sure in regards to this topic

There trully is a trend

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Would someone really do that to you????

Bless your heart

You have been such a loyal follower for so long.....

[cvfd1399 0]

I'm confused are you saying that what he linked did or did not happen in your opinion?

[Amazon 7]

cvfd1399

I'm confused are you saying that what he linked did or didn hot happen in your opinion?

Yes... you are confused

[lawrocket 3]

A couple of points:
(1) It's just an allegation;
(2) The bureau's defense is that these adjustments are the way they're done worldwide; and
(3) The defense is peer review (which goes along with (2) - we're just doing what everybody is doing.

This is the Enron defense: everybody does it this way.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

"Jennifer Marohasy is an Australian biologist "

I guess breitbart couldn't find an actual climate scientist.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

kallend

"Jennifer Marohasy is an Australian biologist "

I guess breitbart couldn't find an actual climate scientist.

Is someone manipulating who she dates too???

[billvon 3,116]

==============
ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change
Volume 21, Issue 4, October 2011, Pages 1163–1172

Cool Dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States

Abstract

We examine whether conservative white males are more likely than are other adults in the U.S. general public to endorse climate change denial. We draw theoretical and analytical guidance from the identity-protective cognition thesis explaining the white male effect and from recent political psychology scholarship documenting the heightened system-justification tendencies of political conservatives. We utilize public opinion data from ten Gallup surveys from 2001 to 2010, focusing specifically on five indicators of climate change denial. We find that conservative white males are significantly more likely than are other Americans to endorse denialist views on all five items, and that these differences are even greater for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well. Furthermore, the results of our multivariate logistic regression models reveal that the conservative white male effect remains significant when controlling for the direct effects of political ideology, race, and gender as well as the effects of nine control variables. We thus conclude that the unique views of conservative white males contribute significantly to the high level of climate change denial in the United States.
================

[turtlespeed 226]

Amazon

***I'm confused are you saying that what he linked did or didn hot happen in your opinion?

Yes... you are confused

And you cannot answer a direct question, obviously.

My guess would be that she does NOT think it actually happened.
She would have to admit that there is manipulation, or at least the POSSIBILITY of manipulation of the AWG data . . . that would ruin her entire world.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

turtlespeed

******I'm confused are you saying that what he linked did or didn hot happen in your opinion?

Yes... you are confused

And you cannot answer a direct question, obviously.

My guess would be that she does NOT think it actually happened.
She would have to admit that there is manipulation, or at least the POSSIBILITY of manipulation of the AWG data . . . that would ruin her entire world.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn

[turtlespeed 226]

Amazon

*********I'm confused are you saying that what he linked did or didn hot happen in your opinion?

Yes... you are confused

And you cannot answer a direct question, obviously.

My guess would be that she does NOT think it actually happened.
She would have to admit that there is manipulation, or at least the POSSIBILITY of manipulation of the AWG data . . . that would ruin her entire world.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn

Really!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

I'll have to find it, but there was a poll in England a couple of years ago that showed that climate skeptics were more likely to be the best educated. Meanwhile, those who most believed in climate alarmism were the poorest and least educated.

Keep people stupid, ignorant and without the ability to think critically and they'll buy anything! Meanwhile, there are those who ask questions. And the scoundrels choose to insult them by saying it's beyond the person's knowledge to ask the questions.

An easy way to lose any ideological battle is to tell those who disagree that they are idiots or otherwise unqualified to ask questions. Or lump them in with some group that is viewed as undesirable. For example, they are called the "worst climate deniers." Because, well, they're just bad.

Note, however, that the accused in the original post did not deny the allegations. He said a couple of things: (1) have the criticisms peer reviewed; and (2) we're only doing what everyone else is doing.

So he's saying that the peers all do it this way. Just ask them. Run your criticisms by them, and they'll all tell you that it's how they do it, too. It's like writing a post talking about how religion is bullshit and Monsignor Alberto is peddling bullshit. Alberto would look like a total ass to say that some Ph.D in physics is totally unqualified to make such assertions. "Submit your issues to peer review among priests. We all say the same thing."

Same tactic. Different players.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Stumpy 284]

lawrocket

Keep people stupid, ignorant and without the ability to think critically and they'll buy anything!

You been reading the GOP playbook again?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[lawrocket 3]

Stumpy

***
Keep people stupid, ignorant and without the ability to think critically and they'll buy anything!

You been reading the GOP playbook again?

I just thought I'd put a similarly ridiculous characterization of global warming alarmists as bill's characterization of deniers.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Note, however, that the accused in the original post did not deny the allegations. He said a couple of things: (1) have the criticisms peer reviewed; and (2) we're only doing what everyone else is doing.

Was that in aa link or something? I didn't see that in the OP's article.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

No. I had googled it.

[Url]http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/amateurs-challenging-bureau-of-meteorology-climate-figures/story-e6frg6xf-1227036441118[/url]

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

lawrocket

No. I had googled it.

[Url]http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/amateurs-challenging-bureau-of-meteorology-climate-figures/story-e6frg6xf-1227036441118[/url]

If the Financial Times graphs a 3 month moving average (that is, MANIPULATED data) of the S&P 500, as does the WSJ and NYT, would you criticize the LA Times for doing the same?

That is the essence of your criticism.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

If Enron showed a profit using the same accounting practices as Global Crossing and Bear Stearns, would you have criticized it?

Oh, yes. You would have. Just because Enron's accounting methodology as the same as every other major corporation doesn't mean it isn't bullshit. You know it, too.

How dare you criticize it? Only Fortune 500 CFOs are qualified to criticize corporate accounting practices. Next thing you know, you'll be criticizing corporate compensation. Only Fortune 500 CEOs are qualified to comment on compensation, and there seems to be a consensus among them that it's a good thing to have massive pay.

Cut the shit, John. You know exactly what I mean.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

lawrocket

If Enron showed a profit using the same accounting practices as Global Crossing and Bear Stearns, would you have criticized it?

Oh, yes. You would have. Just because Enron's accounting methodology as the same as every other major corporation doesn't mean it isn't bullshit. You know it, too.

How dare you criticize it? Only Fortune 500 CFOs are qualified to criticize corporate accounting practices. Next thing you know, you'll be criticizing corporate compensation. Only Fortune 500 CEOs are qualified to comment on compensation, and there seems to be a consensus among them that it's a good thing to have massive pay.

Cut the shit, John. You know exactly what I mean.

Yes, I do indeed. You mean to throw dust in the air at every opportunity.

I can't think of any complex scientific measurements that don't require some sort of signal conditioning, whether it be CERN's large hadron collider, the Rosetta comet probe, an MRI scan of your body, measurements of the CO2 content of the atmosphere, nuclear weapons research, X-Ray Crystallography (my own specialty) or global temperature measurements.

Signal conditioning means eliminating as far as possible the effects of random noise, extraneous influences and systematic errors due to the nature of the equipment and experimental conditions. People like you have seized on this as if it means faking the data. It doesn't; you are either misinformed or deliberately trying to mislead (most likely the latter, given your profession).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,116]

> but there was a poll in England a couple of years ago that showed that climate
>skeptics were more likely to be the best educated.

Hmm. And here in the US, the most educated people are MORE likely to understand climate change by a small amount. However, in the very same poll, the influence of political parties was the overwhelming issue. (by 60 or 70 percentage points.)

Which demonstrates the effect in the article quite well.

>An easy way to lose any ideological battle is to tell those who disagree that
>they are idiots or otherwise unqualified to ask questions.

Everyone is qualified to ask questions. Unfortunately there ARE a lot of idiots out there.

Let's take an example. Dana Rohrabacher recently suggested we should "subsidize the clearing of rainforests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases." What is the best response to her? Should her suggestion be taken seriously, along with the premise that trees are causing warming? Or should her errors be explained to her, and her advice ignored until she learns a bit more about physics and biology?

>Keep people stupid, ignorant and without the ability to think critically and
>they'll buy anything!

True. I recall a recent North Carolina bill that prohibits any research into climate change for planning purposes. If you keep them ignorant, people are more compliant.

[lawrocket 3]

Of course. Adjustments are necessary. And what do the adjustments do? Cool the past and warm the present.

One of them at issue as an adjustment that cooled temperatures a century ago by 1.8 degrees C. Understandably, modern instruments have accuracy and precision that the instruments even 50 years ago did not have. Which is why the USHCN temperatures are adjusted far more than they were 50 years ago and by 2000 the USHCN was being adjusted up over 1 degree C. And increasing.

At some point, many people start to view it as suspicious that the amount of warming tracks well with the amount of adjustment. "We've had 1.5 degrees of warming since 1910" starts to look fishy when when the adjustments account for 1.4 degrees of it.

I myself don't believe that there is any grand conspiracy. Trying to account for UHI and station moves and instrument changes is a pain. And understanding that these changes - including observation times - introduced a cooling bias. [Url]http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/a-cooling-bias-due-to-mmts/[/url]

So as much of a fan as I am of raw data, the raw data has imprecision built into it. So it becomes a challenge to adjust for the biases in a way that does not introduce other greater biases. So my key issue with what the subject of the original post focused on one station being adjusted way down. There is a simple explanation: the PHA compared that station to other nearby stations. It saw a large difference, figured it's a local efffect (local effects are imortant for eather but nor for climate) and took that difference down in order to clear some noise.

Would a real climate scientist say this? Nope. An explanation that says, "we're interested in the signal and not the outliers" then it would actually communicate a substantive thought. Saying something like this actually adds to the discussion. Not addressing it in a direct way says there is something to hide.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

When I first met Dana in 1988, Dana was a dude. The facial hair gave it away. Last time I was around him was 2002 and Dana was still a dude. So unless something has changed, Dana would be the most interesting GOP Congressperson ever.

With regard to the substantive suggestion, yes. "Dana. You know that trees and phytoplankton are still the best CO2 scrubbers we know of. CO2 + H20 + sunlight = CH20 + O2. Yeah - pretty fundamental problem. Kinda like how I addressed the President when he claimed that climate change caused the California drought (no - global warming is expected to increase rainfall in Cali).

[Reply]True. I recall a recent North Carolina bill that prohibits any research into climate change for planning purposes. If you keep them ignorant, people are more compliant.

[billvon 3,116]

>With regard to the substantive suggestion, yes. "Dana. You know that trees
>and phytoplankton are still the best CO2 scrubbers we know of. CO2 + H20 +
>sunlight = CH20 + O2. Yeah - pretty fundamental problem."

So is that "treating him like an idiot?" (him, not her, sorry.) And is that to be avoided?

>I do remember a bill that required that climate projections used by the state
>had to have some empirical observations as their bases.

No, it said ALL the data had to be historical; any projections based on climate changes were outlawed. Thus if the IPCC predicts a 1 meter change within 100 years, and in 10 years we see a 10cm change, then you are not allowed to plan for any further rise. It's a good example of politically enforced ignorance, which deniers, unfortunately, often rely upon.

=============
New Law in North Carolina Bans Latest Scientific Predictions of Sea-Level Rise
Aug. 2, 2012
By ALON HARISH

A new law in North Carolina will ban the state from basing coastal policies on the latest scientific predictions of how much the sea level will rise, prompting environmentalists to accuse the state of disrespecting climate science.
=============

[kallend 2,148]

lawrocket

Of course. Adjustments are necessary. And what do the adjustments do? Cool the past and warm the present.

Incorrect. Typical lawyerly understanding of science.

The adjustments correct for errors in the original data. The past is not changed, nor is the present. All that changes is that accuracy of the measurements is improved.

Sir Isaac Newton measured the mass of the Earth, Sun, Moon and known planets (published in Principia). He was close but no cigar. We now have better values due to better measurements. If we correct the data he used using our improved techniques, his calculations come out correct. No doubt future generations will improve on our accuracy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]
No, it said ALL the data had to be historical; any projections based on climate changes were outlawed. Thus if the IPCC predicts a 1 meter change within 100 years, and in 10 years we see a 10cm change, then you are not allowed to plan for any further rise.