Posted on 01/22/2014 10:10:42 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
I spent the evening comparing USHCN V1 and V2 graphs, and discovered a huge discrepancy between their V1 and V2 adjustments.
This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999-2000, but they didn’t in the US graph.
But when they switched to V2, they started adjusting older temperatures downwards, and left post-2000 temperatures more or less intact. This created a huge jump (greater than one degree) downwards for all years prior to 2000.
By the time they are done corrupting the data, they have hidden the decline and created a strong warming trend, with 1998, 1999 and 2006 being the three hottest years. Prior to corruption, 1999 and 2006 aren’t even in the top ten.
(Excerpt) Read more at stevengoddard.wordpress.com ...
I thought we already knew the climatologists cooked the books, then the dog ate the original data.
thanks for the post.
There are lies, damnable lies and statistics. Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
Drawing a straight line through random data points has never passed the basic math tests required of all statistics.
Good thing you saw that. Now the fascist can stop using global warming as an excuse to force us into subjugation.
Brilliant way to go!
NOAA’s hidden data? to produce ‘hottest year in history of planet.’
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Global Warming nothing but a hypothesis? There is nothing for anyone to confirm in experimentation or confirmable data to progress it to a “Theory” except their word on the data. In other words, there is no scientific method being applied, just their AGW legends.
Isn’t that how the scientific method suppose to work?
Hypothesis + confirmable experiment with confirmable shared data = “Theory”
We can’t experiment or confirm data, other than to assume their lies as a prerequisite.
How can anyone claim to be a scientist when the scientific method is corrupted?
It looks low. Very low.
Your question: “How can anyone claim to be a scientist when the scientific method is corrupted?”
Answer: As long as their snouts are allowed to remain in the funding trough, the scientific swine will all squeal in unison.
“Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Global Warming nothing but a hypothesis?”
No, that is incorrect. Anthropogenic Global Warming (also known as AGW, Global Warming, Climate Change, et al) is a Conjecture, not an Hypothesis or a Theory. The fundamental scientific basis has all been conjecture, because it provides no basis for scientific falsification of its claims. Without a bassis for falsification, the claims cannot be subjected to scientific experiments capable of discriminating between the actual existence versus non-existence of the claimed conditions.
Conjecture -—> Hypothesis -—> Theory
LOL! That’s exactly what I see when I look at one of those things.
No, you dummy. It’s accepted fact. The debate is over. Theory? hahahahahahahahahaha.....
Too many “scientists” are for sale to the highest bidder.
Thank you for that excellent response to my question.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around the scientific falsification process, but I have no doubt you are correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.