so why would your fraud team cool down past data and warm up recent data? http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...ccused-of-fudging-data-to-show-global-warming U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming Written by Alex Newman font size decrease font size increase font size Print E-mail U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming Multiple U.S. government bureaucracies including NOAA, NASA, and the Department of Energy are again being accused of inappropriately manipulating temperature data â or âadjustingâ it, as officials at the agencies implicated in the scandal put it â to show global warming. While the accusations are not new, the latest scandal, sparked by an in-depth analysis of the data by independent analyst Steven Goddard at Real Science, relies on official records to suggest that federal agencies have been fudging temperature measurements to make past decades seem colder and recent years appear warmer. Numerous scientists and experts confirmed Goddardâs explosive findings, but in separate responses to The New American, both NOAA and NASA attempted to downplay the significance of the accusations. The major problems identified by Goddard in the temperature records of federal bureaucracies relate to the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), the official data-set covering the continental United States. While the agencies admit the records are adjusted, Goddard and multiple scientists suggested that biased methodology was used to adjust the data to show an unjustified and âspuriousâ warming trend. âBottom line is there is clearly a huge error in the USHCN adjustments which has added a non-existent one degree hockey stick warming to the official US temperature record, and I now know just where to look for it in their code,â Goddard wrote. âNOAA made a big deal about 2012 blowing away all temperature records, but the temperature they reported is the result of a huge error. This affects all NOAA and NASA U.S. temperature graphs, and is part of the cause of this famous shift.â Citing satellite data, Goddard also said that by 2008, U.S. temperatures had cooled down below 1980s and 90s levels.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAAâs US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been âadjustingâ its record by replacing real temperatures with data âfabricatedâ by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed âData tampering at USHCN/GISSâ, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on âfabricatedâ data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century. When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous âhockey stickâ graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
Thank you for pointing out the amount of y-axis mischief that has crept into the pseudo science surrounding global warming hysteria . (I needn't point out that a Joule is a tiny amount of energy, so global energy changes, in Joules, on the order of 10<sup>22</sup> are entirely reasonable. (In a similar, equally ridiculous, vein, I once reported, as a joke, that a worthless photogalvanic cell was producing 50,000 femto watts!) What we haven't got, not yet anyway, are reasonable explanations for the inconsistencies in the arguments being used to bolster the AGM hypothesis. The latest data and analysis suggests that warming is well within the naturally occurring temperature range experienced by the Earth. If, indeed, man's CO2 producing activities have any discernible effect on warming it is most likely negligible compared to that of natural phenomena that we, as yet, have little control over. Sadly, it is not uncommon for even the most intelligent among us to confuse strong correlation with cause. In the present case, however, to be trapped by such a novice error is inexcusable, because the independent variable has been confused with the dependent. Apparently, until very recently, no one thought to look and see which was which.
Oh!! Look which liar is back!!! Hey Piehole I thought I sent you off with your tail between your legs last time when I pointed out that your logic is non-existant and all your sources are frauds or incompetents or both.