Wow, this is even dumber than Freedman’s story (complete with photoshopped images of airplanes in rising sea water) Quite possibly the dumbest example of ‘Tabloid Climatology’ ever from Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman a couple of years ago, which we rightfully trounced on WUWT for the sheer stupidity of the imagery that somehow, airplanes at LaGuardia would not be able to get out of the way of rising sea levels.
Get a load of this tweet from him today, replete with “conspiracy theory”:
Gosh, “giant conspiracy”.
Um, Andrew, they all use the same base surface data. The Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) from NOAA’s NCDC.
For example: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Or how about: http://www.climate.gov/daily-observational-data-ghcn-daily-summary-%E2%80%93-gis-data-locator-0
And, http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/climatview/outline.html
They all agree because they only have one data source. Therefore, they are NOT independent as you claim.
Andrew, you really need to pull your head out of your ass and stop talking about conspiracy theory stuff, otherwise your career will be relegated to writing for Climate Progress.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What was that line in Rudolph between him and Hermy.
“Hey, what do you say we both be independent together, huh?”
AAAaarrrggghhh- give me something else so as to refute the article other than “They all use the same data” or GIGO. Does GISS or RSS trump other sources?
“They all use the same data” refutes a Twitter entry not an article.
The journalarmists seem to be getting dumber every day.
First, they adjust the data. Then, they tell you what it means.
While I agree with your sentiments, let me make just a small nit-pick about the word “adjust.” “Adjust” implies that the data has some known and quantifiable flaw which may be compensated for. It is only an “adjustment” if they show exactly why they changed it, how much they changed it, and the method by which they determined how much to change it. While there certainly are justifiable reasons why data should sometimes be adjusted, I do not think that there has ever been any transparency about ALL of the changes that are done. Lacking that transparency, it might be more accurate to say that the data has been “altered” and remain agnostic about whether it was actually an adjustment or not.
As some may know, Gavin Schmidt from NASA now running GISS, Hanson’s protégé, who controls temperature data and “adjustments” dropping rural stations thus jacking up the reported rise in average land instrument data due to UHI, making past seem colder, and also for more recent period deviating from RSS showing a rise above satellite data. Now Schmidt also is a degree of a propagandist running RealClimate website on side along with hockey stick celebrity Michael Mann. Pure association with “hide the decline” Mann calls into question the adjusted HCN temperature data put out from GISS and likely mann made global warming as opposed to true recorded temps without cherry picking stations by computer program, or imputed guess temps for parts of central Africa or poles where there are no stations.
You can not have GISS manipulated data with a rising temperatures deviate from RSS satellite forever, the upward gap will get worse as time goes on, I hope a Congressional Committee gets a panel including Schmidt to drill under oath and try to explain his difference from satellite data and get down to the inconvenient truth about the true as opposed to reported temperature record. There is a difference from pure science on the issue of CO2, global warming, and climatic change, versus propaganda put out by multiple gov. agencies and WH, I prefer truth and pure science over politicization, propaganda, and fake data and “facts” to hide things and defend careers or change energy policy or waste billions $ doing things like having Agricultural Department set up climatic hubs to deal with a non-existent or insignificant problem or Interior deal with sea level and Everglades being under water and Muir glacier melting which is no real change in rate from before GHG, now Homeland Security in on climate budget too, more tornades and hurricanes when opposite is true, idiocy of polar vortex and record low N. American temps last winter blamed on warming, get tired of people having careers bent on trying to manipulate public opinion as opposed to truth.
One of the great services of climate alarmists, particularly those who claim to be scientists, is the material they give us to make them look stupid in their own words. While it is tempting to completely trash them with such bounty the worry is they’ll learn from their mistakes. Oh, wait – it’s all they’ve got. Never mind.
The climate obsessed lose their critical thinking skills in tragic ways, it would seem.
The alarmists never mention the recovery from the Little Ice Age. The modern temperature record ,commonly said to begin circa 1850, shows an upward trend simce then. It’s warmer now than in 1850. This existing trend line, independent of CAGW, would cause many years since 1850 to be the “hottest ever”
It is most likely not a planned conspiracy per se, (which suggest an inner council of hooded men meeting in a secret “star chamber”) but rather the last gasp reaction of the “groupthink” death of a theory based on unreliable and often manipulated earth stations.
A theory that simply didn’t survive the truth of independent satellite data.
In selling religions and other belief systems, after all logical arguments fail to support their hypothesis, the evangelist turns to the need for a “leap of faith” to win the conversion.
In other words, suspend all questions from this point onwards and just accept our “truth”.
“Groupthink” is certainly the more pleasant explanation — but I cannot accept that for this reason: People joined in a groupthink really, truly, actually believe what they are espousing. They may be right, they may be wrong, but either way, they certain think that they are correct. People engaged in dishonesty know that they are hiding something and are anxious that you not find the truth.
Are the so-called “climate scientists” willing to show their software, their adjustments, their methodology? Are they willing to correct known errors and to answer sincere questions? Or are they unwilling to debate, to explain or to release details of their work? Do their actions best describe people who are sincere in their beliefs or are their actions those of people who wish to confuse and hide their work?
What the NCDC is doing now is playing around with the Northern Hemisphere ocean temperatures.
They can’t get away with the land so much anymore given how many people are watching this closely and the Southern Oceans have all that ice that can’t be explained away so easily.
So why not just makes some changes to the Northern Hemisphere ocean SSTs instead. Complete sky-rocket this summer in the 0.94C range.
http://s23.postimg.org/ca8co2hob/NCDC_Ocean_SSTs_1880_to_2014.png
And part of it is the seasonality that they managed to change in some manner so that summers are always in record territory now and winters are always colder. Just since 2000 so that one can see the seasonality which should not be showing up in the anomaly figures like this.
http://s28.postimg.org/xobc7y1xp/NCDC_Ocean_SSTs_2000_to_2014.png
This is evident in the NCDC’s SST maps which are ridiculously hot in the NH and were much worse in mid-August for example than they are now.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/rtg_high_res/
Compared to the Unisys SST map which is obviously using its own numbers and not the NCDC’s numbers and has the NH becoming ice age-like. Only one of these is right.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
The unisys maps are consistent with the weather for the last 9+ months on the east side of the North Atlantic, which has been cool overall, due I believe to the prevailing Westerlies at these latitudes.
Let’s assume for a second that they were all independent and all came to the same conclusion: warmer.
That’s still a far cry from attribution to CO2 emissions and catastrophic projections.
The alarmists are always pulling this on the general public: provide some evidence for warming and conclude its proof of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming alternatively if it’s not warming provide some evidence of change (even if it’s only unprecedented for a few years as long as the word unprecedented is used) then (poof, as if by magic) that’s suddenly proof of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
Global warming policy is a nonsensical house of cards built on the shifting sands of unreliable models situated directly over the geologic instability of confirmation-biased data, all held stable only through the most profound faith.
Are the models built above the Californian fault lines?
The heartbreak of proctocraniosis.
About those 3 independent centers:
NASA & NOAA have the same dear leader and all (including the JMA) are adherents of the WMO that “ . . . is a specialized agency of the United Nations.”
The attitude of the POTUS was summerised by his then new Dept. of Interior head, Sally Jewell” ““I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior,” ”
http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2013-08-02/jewell-no-climate-change-deniers-at-interior/
I can independently verify that my claims about being independently verified have themselves been independently verified (after extensive independent verification by me).