...when researchers get access to actual, raw temperature readings and compare to the "adjusted" or, in this case, "homogenized" data, to be able to reverse engineer the amount of the "adjustment". Read this if you find the weeds to be revealing sources of the magnitude of the scandalous deception over so-called "human-caused global warming." And, we have our own local meteorologist, Anthony Watts, for his "Watts Up With That" website that has been puncturing elements of the alarmists narrative for years. Here, we have the same pattern that was revealed for New Zealand: raw data consistently reveals no warming trend--and the "adjusters" won't reveal the formulas/codes they used to anyone:
"Some of the “Homogenized” Temperature Data is False"
Jim Lindgren • December 8, 2009 5:43 pm (Volokh Conspiracy)
When the CRU at East Anglia disclosed that it had lost some of the raw temperature data, leaving only the “homogenized” data, some honest commentators expressed the hope that the homogenizing was competently done.
Anyone who has been following Climate Audit for the last few years knows that at least some of the adjustments to the raw data done by the major data depositories appear to have been incompetently done at best. The statistical techniques used in the scientific backwater of historical climatology are often ad hoc, bearing little relation to the techniques that are standard in other fields. In particular, their techniques for handling missing data are particularly unscientific.
Perhaps the most accessible blog post demonstrating the effects of homogenization adjustments on a set of temperature records is by Willis Eschenbach at Watts Up With That.
"The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero
"People keep saying “Yes, the Climategate scientists behaved badly. But that doesn’t mean the data is bad. That doesn’t mean the earth is not warming.”
"Let me start with the second objection first. The earth has generally been warming since the Little Ice Age, around 1650. There is general agreement that the earth has warmed since then. See e.g. Akasofu. Climategate doesn’t affect that.
"The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People say “Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists’ papers out of the journals … but that doesn’t affect the data, the data is still good.” Which sounds reasonable.
"There are three main global temperature datasets...."
Go to link below for the graphs that say it all, for temps going back to 1880--showing slight cooling:
http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/the-homogenized-data-is-false/
No comments:
Post a Comment