Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Most scientists, like all of us, try to do what's right.

Based on my first read, this looks somewhat damning. Are these rare exceptions? Is an equal amount of data adjusted downward? Or is this an example of our trusted government scientists gaming the results?

Adapt to their surrounding infinitely changing environment vise trying desperately to change it.

That is NOT changing their environment Phule. That is changing their behavior.

In doing so, they are adapting to the surrounding environment. NOT changing it.


So make up your mind on your post....

Edward, if you're... not just posting right-wing talking points, you could start by looking up what actual scientists have to say.... you've been taken in again! How come you couldn't guess that from the source?

Show some skepticism if you can.

Looks like they hooked you pretty good, EdwardT. I mean, you're asking us to forget something that has already been completely debunked and forgotten.

If you seriously want to discuss the way in which the "raw data" of surface temperatures are analyzed (which we've attempted to do in the past on this thread, to no avail) we can dig the papers out and have a discussion. However, I doubt that is the intent when such a silly link is provided as a starting point in an endlessly circular "gotcha" discussions on points that have been very well established.

You might as well state from the onset that you aren't interested in the discussion, you're just interested in arguing... which becomes pointless if you aren't willing to accept the work that has been done to address the points.

I post a story, opining little more than "Based on my first read, this looks somewhat damning".

I try to keep an open mind. It's a challenge with all the noise. But I still try.

Chiloe said "The Puerto Casada accusations were instantly shown to be incompetent hackwork".
Could you elaborate?

Amateurs! With so many stations to chose from, they should have been able to find some where the non-climatic changes are not documented and could only be determined statistically by comparison with its neighboring stations. In the mitigation-sceptic speak that is called “no evidence” (at least in the last similarly stupid case with two stations in Australia). But, no, they have to chose a station where all breakpoints (non-climatic changes) are due to known station moves.

Christopher Booker: “To fill in the huge gaps, those compiling the records have resorted to computerised “infilling” or “homogenising””

Amateurs! There are more than enough mitigation sceptics what would have been willing to edit this article and who do know the difference between filling missing data & removing non-climatic effects (“homogenising”).

Christopher Booker: “This belief [that temperatures has suddenly taken a great leap upwards] has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).”

Amateurs! Booker thinks he is smarter than all scientists working on the quality of the station datasets, but he does not know the database of BEST.

Furthermore, both the dataset of BEST and the one of the Climatic Research Unit and the one of the International Surface Temperature Initiative contain large amounts of data that are not from GHCN. And he conveniently forgets the dozens of national weather services that all have their own temperature datasets, that all show an upward trend.

The scandals mentioned by Brooker in New Zealand and Australia are long debunked. Does that really need to be repeated? Just look on HotWhopper. Is he referring the to report of Anthony Watts? After which Anthony Watts co-authored Fall et al. with showed that the report of Anthony Watts was wrong?

ATTP: “As it stands, however, it does appear that my initial assessment that Christopher Booker is an idiot was justified.”

As a climate scientist I can naturally not agree with such a statement. But he does give the impression of being an idiot.