DELINGPOLE: ‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds

gwb-trading said:
So you still can't find any realistic grounds to dispute the information and data in the paper, eh?
More...
I can't answer for ExGOPer, but it seems to me he his making the point that this "report" in question seems to have never been subjected to expert criticism of the kind it would have been were it published in one of the standard, widely respected, peer reviewed journals. That suggests to me that one should be cautious in accepting its findings as correct.. Personally, I'm always suspicious of so called "scientific papers" if they haven't been peer reviewed by experts (which lord knows is not an infallible process) and especially if one or more of the authors is associated with a think tank normally connected with political rather than scientific discourse.
Having Breitbart reference it does not strengthen the articles probity; it weakens it.
 
not that tough. the data has been published on the net by these agencies for years.
here are some of the data sets... right here.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets

you download the temps as they recorded them before in a csv file.
you download the data after they adjusted them.

you put the data into an excel spreadsheet and subtract the old data from the new data.

you then graph it... (reverse the sign) negative numbers below the zero line in blue. positive temps above the zero line in red. (you

voila.

unless of course the agency responsible for the previous data... "lost it"
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
I can't answer for ExGOPer, but it seems to me he his making the point that this "report" in question seems to have never been subjected to expert criticism of the kind it would have been were it published in one of the standard, widely respected, peer reviewed journals. That suggests to me that one should be cautious in accepting its findings as correct.. Personally, I'm always suspicious of so called "scientific papers" if they haven't been peer reviewed by experts (which lord knows is not an infallible process) and especially if one or more of the authors is associated with a think tank normally connected with political rather than scientific discourse.
Having Breitbart reference it does not strengthen the articles probity; it weakens it.
More...

From Page 2 of abridged research report PDF...

The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report:

Dr. Alan Carlin
Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP - Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amo
co Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
 
jem said:
not that tough. the has been published on the net by these agencies for years.
here are some of the data sets... right here.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets

you download the temps as they recorded them before in a csv file.
you download the data after they adjusted them.

you put the data into an excel spreadsheet and subtract the old data from the new data.

you then graph it... (reverse the sign) negative numbers below the zero line in blue. positive temps above the zero line in red. (you

voila.

unless of course the agency responsible for the previous data... "lost it"
More...
But Jem, you have to understand the rationale behind the corrections and be able to criticise them on the basis of their scientific merit in light of the reliability of the uncorrected data. This really does require someone whose knowledge goes fairly deep.
 
gwb-trading said:
From Page 2 of abridged research report PDF...

The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report:

Dr. Alan Carlin
Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP - Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amo
co Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
More...
This is interesting, even after throwing out the opinions of the two economists, the mechanical Engineer and the Environmental Scientist, but it doesn't, of course, constitute proper peer review.

As you no doubt know, I am a critic of the Hansen Hypothesis. I Think it is wrong. And I have even suggested that Hansen has become emotionally entangled and can no longer be objective. On the issue of global warming however, I am undecided.
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
This is interesting, even after throwing out the opinions of the two economists, the mechanical Engineer and the Environmental Scientist, but it doesn't, of course, constitute proper peer review.

As you no doubt know, I am a critic of the Hansen Hypothesis. I Think it is wrong. And I have even suggested that Hansen has become emotionally entangled and can no longer be objective. On the issue of global warming however, I am undecided.
More...

Yes... I am waiting for the full related paper to be published (expected in August from my understanding) rather than just the abridged research report.

When we see the full paper related to this then it will be time to come back and post in this thread again.
 
piezoe said:
This is interesting, even after throwing out the opinions of the two economists, the mechanical Engineer and the Environmental Scientist, but it doesn't, of course, constitute proper peer review.

As you no doubt know, I am a critic of the Hansen Hypothesis. I Think it is wrong. And I have even suggested that Hansen has become emotionally entangled and can no longer be objective. On the issue of global warming however, I am undecided.
More...

That list is a who's who of paid stooges at the Heartland 'Institute', they will stamp their name on anything for a buck.

https://www.desmogblog.com/heartlan...documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine
 
now you are talking about explaining how the data points were adjusted. that is another argument.

I agree with the idea adjusting the data up or down should require a solid scientific rationale after considering all valid points of view... but that is a second argument.

agw nutter boy challenged the chart... I explained why his challenge was garbage because he could graph it himself.

the chart itself tells a story. the thing speaks for itself -res ipsa loquitur.

if the warmistas want to justify why its so clear they cooled the past and warmed the near present... let them go for it.




piezoe said:
But Jem, you have to understand the rationale behind the corrections and be able to criticise them on the basis of their scientific merit in light of the reliability of the uncorrected data. This really does require someone whose knowledge goes fairly deep.
More...
 
i note I added reverse the sign after wetodd gave it a like.

I believe he was correct... i did not need to add reverse the sign.

if 1944 was 72 and you change it to 71 and you subract 72 from 71 you would have a negative number... showing cooling on the graph. (this was a hypo)

jem said:
not that tough. the data has been published on the net by these agencies for years.
here are some of the data sets... right here.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets

you download the temps as they recorded them before in a csv file.
you download the data after they adjusted them.

you put the data into an excel spreadsheet and subtract the old data from the new data.

you then graph it... (reverse the sign) negative numbers below the zero line in blue. positive temps above the zero line in red. (you

voila.

unless of course the agency responsible for the previous data... "lost it"
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top