Hey, dopey, do you even know who Judith Curry is? She is known as a skeptic and a critic of some of the methodology used by the climate science community. She wrote the following. Sorry, it's a lot of words. Why Adjust Temperatures? There are a number of folks who question the need for adjustments at all. Why not just use raw temperatures, they ask, since those are pure and unadulterated? The problem is that (with the exception of the newly created Climate Reference Network), there is really no such thing as a pure and unadulterated temperature record. Temperature stations in the U.S. are mainly operated by volunteer observers (the Cooperative Observer Network, or co-op stations for short). Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate. Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) inStevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems(MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems(ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements. All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper. Time of observation changes from afternoon to morning also can add a cooling bias of up to 0.5 C, affecting maximum and minimum temperatures similarly. The reasons why this occurs, how it is tested, and how we know that documented time of observations are correct (or not) will be discussed in detail in the subsequent post. There are also significant positive minimum temperature biases from urban heat islands that add a trend bias up to 0.2 C nationwide to raw readings. Because the biases are large and systemic, ignoring them is not a viable option. If some corrections to the data are necessary, there is a need for systems to make these corrections in a way that does not introduce more bias than they remove. http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
Flashback 1976: Climatologists Blamed California Drought On ‘Global Cooling’ 'In 1976, climatologists said that that global cooling caused drought and fires in California, and produced catastrophic erratic weather globally.'
Of course, futurecurrents pushes this nonsense without explaining the context. She "did NOT write the following" This article is by Zeke Hausfather - a long time promoter of Global Warming. He is associated with BerkelyEarth and other organizations. http://berkeleyearth.org/team/zeke-hausfather/ Judith Curry invited Zeke and global warming supporters on to her blog to provide their perspective and input on temperature adjustments. She (unlike global warming alarmists) regularly invites views from the other side to publish on her blog. You will even note that the first comment in the thread was Judith asking people to be civil in their responses to Zeke and have a rational debate.
Only fully indoctrinated (post room 101) left wing Chicken Little's think science funded by billions of Government dollars hasn't become politics.
Fair enough. But could scientists just as easily be arguing there is global cooling, in order to get continued funding? Is it merely by chance they chose global warming?