N_Cook Wrote in message:
On 19/08/2016 08:03, Freddie wrote:
One for Lawrence.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...thoroughly-fab
ricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/


ok
isostatic rebound messes things up for mean sea level purposes .

Therein lies a good analogy :-)


--
Freddie
Pontesbury
Shropshire
102 m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
http://twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly updates


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Lawrence Jenkins Wrote in message:
On Friday, 19 August 2016 14:58:40 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Friday, 19 August 2016 13:27:01 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 19 August 2016 08:03:15 UTC+1, Freddie wrote:
One for Lawrence.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...thoroughly-fab
ricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

--
Freddie
Pontesbury
Shropshire
102 m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
http://twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly updates


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/



Just has a quick shify and found this particularly interesting

"Peter Thorne, a scientist at Maynooth University in Ireland who has worked with all sorts of global temperature datasets over his career, disagrees. ?Find me a scientist who?s involved in making measurements who says the original measurements are perfect, as are. It doesn?t exist,? he told Ars. ?It?s beyond a doubt that we have to?have to?do some analysis. We can?t just take the data as a given.?.


So what he is saying is that no scientist would say the original temperatures are perfect. So what is the solution to this and in the case of the USA in particular of the thousands of past meticulously kept weather stations.

Well the answer is first you denigrate and say they can't be trusted even though in the US in the 1930's AKA as 'The Dust Bowl Years' (erm... is that a slight clue)there were thousands of Newspaper stories reflecting the incidents of record heat in a time when the press tended far less eagerly to hyperbole.

No despite of all that what you do is adjust the temperatures downwards as they do not fit the theory. Now you would have thought if they were not to be trusted then some stations were maybe a little too high and it would then go without saying that some then would have been a little too low. But no, none of that.

NASA/NOAA must have a time machine as they say emphatically without breaking a sweat (as it was far cooler then, than the data shows) and then tells the world via the UN that every US temperature station had been measured far too high. I mean silly us how can we possibly believe their data from eighty years ago, I mean how can you trust those naïve folk back then when AGW wasn't even an issue.

So what does Gavin and his well paid tax funded cohorts with no agenda do? Why they being the omnipotent time travellers that they are, they adjust the whole data set downwards to make the present look hotter.

If you look at the raw data set (red line)you will see the thirties were equal if not warmer than now.

So isn't it funny how in a time when weather stations actually existed and Nasa/NOAA didn't fill in the missing data with what they think it should be and these stations before way before any AGW pandemic or 'big oil' or the 'Koch Brothers ' came along these people kept meticulous records and now Nasa /Noaa tell us that they had it all so wrong.

You see no one question these people as most people haven's got a clue about TOBS past data and so on , they just assume that we have honest people running the ship. The only people that can see this is a manipulation of data , always in the direct to prove AGW are a handful who have the background, the honesty to say 'this isn't right' and the fortitude to lose funding and university careers in their field. Now me as a simpleton and not a scientist , even I can see that the adjustments are always one way and ask 'why would they do that that?.

Jennifer Marohasy is also fighting to expose temperature manipulation and has already shown the Aussie BOM to have been guilty of readjusting the past and guess where , yep downwards as usual.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/temperatures/


http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18459

She also responded to Brian 'Pretty Boy do as I say' Cox who recently took time of from jet setting around the globe making programs about our world and the environment, to jet set to Australia to warn them about co2 and global warming.

http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18459

Lawrence,

If the records were not corrected then you sceptics would complain about the heat island effect. But then you do! We can't win :-(



Hold on a cotton picking........... so they have all been adjusted down. The raw data shows late twentieth warming does it not, so lets leave the data raw and the hey presto the heat of the 30's isn't far of the heat of the late 20th and early 21st. And if anything the UHI effect is infinitely more of an issue now than in the thirties so if anything the 30's were far warmer than now. How they could readjust to make it cooler is beyond logic, but cooler they made it, of course it was completely objective,

It was due to the change-over to electronic instrumentation apparently.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring.../temperature-m
onitoring.php

--
Freddie
Pontesbury
Shropshire
102 m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
http://twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly updates


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Wrote in message:

You are on impossible ground, Freddie.

I know. It's Friday fun :-)I've been a bit of a master baiter in
this thread ;-)

--
Freddie
Pontesbury
Shropshire
102 m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
http://twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly updates


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Friday, 19 August 2016 20:22:20 UTC+1, Freddie wrote:
Wrote in message:

You are on impossible ground, Freddie.

I know. It's Friday fun :-)
I've been a bit of a master baiter in
this thread ;-)

--
Freddie
Pontesbury
Shropshire
102 m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
http://twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly updates


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

You keep your master baiting hand to your self. Or is that more manipulated data.

On Friday, 19 August 2016 08:03:15 UTC+1, Freddie wrote:
One for Lawrence.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...thoroughly-fab
ricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/


How firmly in your cheek was your tongue with that bag of ****?

Do you really think that respected scientists would resign/ create a plethora of blogs/ demand accountability if the problem wasn't systemic?

Does anyone think that it was really a difficult problem for Phil Jones to reply to emails?

As if he didn't have a secretary and any amount of flowerpots to do his bidding!
And finally... Did the article have anything to say about the low grade staff at the IPCC shuffling all their statistics?
And crucially:
How can any of them be trusted after the Climategate affair?
Nobody in their right minds could trust Doctor Jones unless it was to doctor records.

On Saturday, 20 August 2016 01:13:46 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Friday, 19 August 2016 08:03:15 UTC+1, Freddie wrote:
One for Lawrence.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...thoroughly-fab
ricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/


How firmly in your cheek was your tongue with that bag of ****?

Do you really think that respected scientists would resign/ create a plethora of blogs/ demand accountability if the problem wasn't systemic?

Does anyone think that it was really a difficult problem for Phil Jones to reply to emails?

As if he didn't have a secretary and any amount of flowerpots to do his bidding!
And finally... Did the article have anything to say about the low grade staff at the IPCC shuffling all their statistics?
And crucially:
How can any of them be trusted after the Climategate affair?
Nobody in their right minds could trust Doctor Jones unless it was to doctor records.

Another one who thinks it is all a great big conspiracy. Spouts utter gobbledygook, is simply wrong, yet feels it is fine to pillory real scientists who have made an excellent contribution.

Just so funny to watch him digging his conspiracy hole.....😂😂😂😂😂

On Friday, 19 August 2016 20:22:20 UTC+1, Freddie wrote:
Wrote in message:

You are on impossible ground, Freddie.

I know. It's Friday fun :-)
I've been a bit of a master baiter in
this thread ;-)

--
Freddie
Pontesbury
Shropshire
102 m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
http://twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly updates


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

😂😂 Deniers deny. Doesn't matter what the real science is, they will cobble together something, hoping other people with similar far right wing views and low intelligence will believe what they say.

Doesn't work and they detest being marginalised in that dark corner of their shrinking and very small room.

On Saturday, 20 August 2016 01:13:46 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Friday, 19 August 2016 08:03:15 UTC+1, Freddie wrote:
One for Lawrence.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...thoroughly-fab
ricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/


How firmly in your cheek was your tongue with that bag of ****?

Do you really think that respected scientists would resign/ create a plethora of blogs/ demand accountability if the problem wasn't systemic?

Does anyone think that it was really a difficult problem for Phil Jones to reply to emails?

As if he didn't have a secretary and any amount of flowerpots to do his bidding!
And finally... Did the article have anything to say about the low grade staff at the IPCC shuffling all their statistics?
And crucially:
How can any of them be trusted after the Climategate affair?
Nobody in their right minds could trust Doctor Jones unless it was to doctor records.

Michael you have really 'turned' this past year and seem to have finally fallen on one side of the discussion. There is dissent, The trouble with it all is how many either care or would have the expertise to understand of the earth temperature record and pronouncements were arrived at. Most people (especially the Hollywood luvvies who profess to care and then spew C02) if asked on -the spot to give the atmospheric break down would fail to do so.


Yes the eartyh has warmed and yes c02

On Saturday, 20 August 2016 16:43:03 UTC+3, Weatherlawyer wrote:
I am far more interested in finding out what actually causes weather.

The sun.
HTH.

Col

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 6:01:41 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Saturday, 20 August 2016 16:43:03 UTC+3, Weatherlawyer wrote:
I am far more interested in finding out what actually causes weather.

The sun.
HTH.

Col

And carbon dioxide.