Slashdot Mirror

again you post completely wrong information.

They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research

Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

Also, BS on the copyright claim.

They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models,

Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...

which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed.

Wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
https://www.wunderground.com/c...

Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases,

Wrong.
See above.

while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.

Wrong.
see above.

In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion.

That is a completely BS talking point.
No one is harming anyone's economy as a result of fighting this.
The idea that this somehow requires harming your economy is complete BS.

China and India are already more committed to it than the US is, and have, relatively, done more. And China's economy is both the largest in the world, and fastest growing, growing at a whopping 8% GDP every year for the past decade and a half, including during the global recession (ie, they weren't even hit by the recession), and while they are enacting more and more environmental regulations to do their part.

And in the US the "Green Energy Revolution" has created thousands of jobs and economic opportunity.
But that's what happens when a new industry grows; the naysayers (like you) who said it would be different this time, that it would harm people, were idiots.

It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham. The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters.

This only shows that you are ignorant about both groups of people.

They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.

No, that's what you're doing.

Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side.

Not sure what your point is here.
Best I can tell is that you're disproving your own point and not even realizing it.

This is essentially what you just did:
-You said gravity wasn't real
-You threw an apple in the air
-It hit you on the head.
-You then said "See? Gravity is BS."

Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes

Well, the willfully ignorant typically remain that way until forced into action.
Especially when they are as determined to ignore reality as you are.

Go have a look at the data, methods & conclusion of the Berkeley Earth project, that decided to redo the work of climate & temp data analysis and look at more data from further back than ANYONE has yet done.
While their lead researcher had some harsh things to say about the methods of some studies, in the end the conclusions are the same.
The Earth is warming, has been for over a hundred years and humans are largely responsible for the warming, especially in recent decades, volcanoes for any cooling and the impact of solar variation is negligible

http://berkeleyearth.org/summa...

I'm not sure what you think you're talking about, but, yes, many recent years have been the warmest on record.
If you want graphs, they're available many places. Try, for example, looking here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summa...

The scientific evidence that the planet is warming is overwhelming

Well, then there is an easy solution: Start making the evidence public.

http://berkeleyearth.org/

Gosh, that was hard.

the EXACT OPPOSITE has been *****OBSERVED*****

So you keep claiming, but repeating it louder isn't going to help. If you can produce this supposed evidence, try doing that, because spamming links to some political site won't sway anyone. And while you're at it, see if you can explain away the mountains of evidence showing the accelerating rise in temperatures for the last 150 years.

the falsified data from NOAA, yes, FALSIFIED

Let me guess, you've got no evidence for this accusation of malfeasance either, right? Your sole basis for all this seems to be that you don't like the results, and something something conspiracy. Well too bad, science doesn't work that way. You can spout Lysenkoism all you like, but from here it looks much more like you're the one denying the evidence you dislike, and producing none of your own.

NOAA are completely open about their data correction methods, which are peer reviewed, confirmed independently, and are corroborated by data & analysis from NASA, CRU, and other international agencies. And if you still don't like it, take their raw data (yes, it's always been available) and do your own analysis (if you can get your methodology through peer review, ha ha). That's what the Berkeley Earth people did (you can check their data too) - and surprise surprise, their results agreed with NOAA, NASA, and the others. So your unsubstantiated claims of "tainted" data are laughable in the face of the real evidence.

No amount of evidence will ever persuade you from your religious beliefs.

What a coincidence; "no amount of evidence" is exactly what you've produced. And yet it's you that has repeatedly dismissed all the evidence against you, citing only some purely hypothetical political manipulation. "Zombie minion" indeed.

the EXACT OPPOSITE has been *****OBSERVED*****

So you keep claiming, but repeating it louder isn't going to help. If you can produce this supposed evidence, try doing that, because spamming links to some political site won't sway anyone. And while you're at it, see if you can explain away the mountains of evidence showing the accelerating rise in temperatures for the last 150 years.

the falsified data from NOAA, yes, FALSIFIED

Let me guess, you've got no evidence for this accusation of malfeasance either, right? Your sole basis for all this seems to be that you don't like the results, and something something conspiracy. Well too bad, science doesn't work that way. You can spout Lysenkoism all you like, but from here it looks much more like you're the one denying the evidence you dislike, and producing none of your own.

NOAA are completely open about their data correction methods, which are peer reviewed, confirmed independently, and are corroborated by data & analysis from NASA, CRU, and other international agencies. And if you still don't like it, take their raw data (yes, it's always been available) and do your own analysis (if you can get your methodology through peer review, ha ha). That's what the Berkeley Earth people did (you can check their data too) - and surprise surprise, their results agreed with NOAA, NASA, and the others. So your unsubstantiated claims of "tainted" data are laughable in the face of the real evidence.

No amount of evidence will ever persuade you from your religious beliefs.

What a coincidence; "no amount of evidence" is exactly what you've produced. And yet it's you that has repeatedly dismissed all the evidence against you, citing only some purely hypothetical political manipulation. "Zombie minion" indeed.

Go read up on the BEST project. They had similar concerns about the current analyses, including the influence of the urban heat island effect.

Unlike the armchair deniers found on the internet, they actually did their own analysis, both with and without urban readings. Somewhat to their surprise, excluding the warmer urban readings completely made virtually no difference to the overall result.

specially when there is such a huge agenda behind it with massive amounts of money

I don't suppose you're referring to the fossil-fuel industry's agenda? It's hard to get more massive than the trillions of dollars they have at stake.

Go read up on the BEST project. They had similar concerns about the current analyses, including the influence of the urban heat island effect.

Unlike the armchair deniers found on the internet, they actually did their own analysis, both with and without urban readings. Somewhat to their surprise, excluding the warmer urban readings completely made virtually no difference to the overall result.

specially when there is such a huge agenda behind it with massive amounts of money

I don't suppose you're referring to the fossil-fuel industry's agenda? It's hard to get more massive than the trillions of dollars they have at stake.

What is interesting is that the Berkeley Earth project, organised by then-sceptic Richard Muller did a different, completely independent analysis of the temperature record. BEST automatically detected discontinuities in individual temperature records, split the record at each discontinuity, and then spliced all the continuous subrecords together again, merging them into a global temperature record. The result is basically indistinguishable from the other major reconstructions (which are also mostly independent, but use more similar methodologies). Muller has adapted his opinion to the data and now acknowledges that the manual adjustments were indeed justified and done with skill and care.

What is interesting is that the Berkeley Earth project, organised by then-sceptic Richard Muller did a different, completely independent analysis of the temperature record. BEST automatically detected discontinuities in individual temperature records, split the record at each discontinuity, and then spliced all the continuous subrecords together again, merging them into a global temperature record. The result is basically indistinguishable from the other major reconstructions (which are also mostly independent, but use more similar methodologies). Muller has adapted his opinion to the data and now acknowledges that the manual adjustments were indeed justified and done with skill and care.

Who is doing the weighting (adjusting) and how? What #define-s do they use in their code? Would they not stop "adjusting" before the results show the trend, which they sincerely believe must be there? See, what is "sold" to the public as objective recordings of scientific instruments are, in fact, results of "adjustments" by unknown programs using unspecified parameters...

How would you know? I'll bet you've never even tried looking for those "unknown programs" and "unspecified parameters".

You can start looking here. There are lots of links to NOAA's methods and reasons for adjusting temperatures and even a couple of graphs that compare adjusted to raw temperatures.

Or you can check out the BEST temperature record which is not funded by the government. This page describes how they process the data set and this page contains links to the code they use to process the data.

No one has destroyed any of the raw data. Some have deleted their copies of the data when they no longer need it.

But I seriously doubt you'll take the time to look into it for yourself and you will continue to gullibily believe the people who tell you those things. Unfortunately for you the real world will continue to respond to anthropogenic influences and if you live long enough you will find many of the things scientists are predicting will come to pass.

Who is doing the weighting (adjusting) and how? What #define-s do they use in their code? Would they not stop "adjusting" before the results show the trend, which they sincerely believe must be there? See, what is "sold" to the public as objective recordings of scientific instruments are, in fact, results of "adjustments" by unknown programs using unspecified parameters...

How would you know? I'll bet you've never even tried looking for those "unknown programs" and "unspecified parameters".

You can start looking here. There are lots of links to NOAA's methods and reasons for adjusting temperatures and even a couple of graphs that compare adjusted to raw temperatures.

Or you can check out the BEST temperature record which is not funded by the government. This page describes how they process the data set and this page contains links to the code they use to process the data.

No one has destroyed any of the raw data. Some have deleted their copies of the data when they no longer need it.

But I seriously doubt you'll take the time to look into it for yourself and you will continue to gullibily believe the people who tell you those things. Unfortunately for you the real world will continue to respond to anthropogenic influences and if you live long enough you will find many of the things scientists are predicting will come to pass.

Why don't you do some digging before you start making unfounded speculations about what they're doing. They're not scared to reveal the methods they're using because they already do that. Climate science is one of the most transparent sciences out there.

Here's a FAQ page from NOAA that talks about the adjustments and has links to actual published papers that explain why and how the adjustments were made:

Monitoring Global and U.S. Temperatures at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information

Or you could try Berkeley Earth. They are independent of the normal funding process. If you click on the Data link then under the Transparency heading you find links to their raw data and their analysis code as well as links to their published papers.

Now really understanding those papers is probably something beyond your capabilities but they're out there.

The difficulty is that the deniers call all the data "manipulated to further a political point." If you routinely discard all the data except data that supports your pre-determined conclusions, this is not science, but an ideology with no possible way for it to be challenged.

For example, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was founded specifically to do an independent analysis of the temperature record, to address the purported flaws in the data analysis by all the previous scientific groups. http://berkeleyearth.org/

This is the analysis of which Anthony Watts said (before any results were released): "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. ... [T]he method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. ... That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."

OK. They are also concluding that 2015 is the hottest year on record.

The difficulty is that the deniers call all the data "manipulated to further a political point." If you routinely discard all the data except data that supports your pre-determined conclusions, this is not science, but an ideology with no possible way for it to be challenged.

For example, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was founded specifically to do an independent analysis of the temperature record, to address the purported flaws in the data analysis by all the previous scientific groups. http://berkeleyearth.org/

This is the analysis of which Anthony Watts said (before any results were released): "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. ... [T]he method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. ... That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."

OK. They are also concluding that 2015 is the hottest year on record.

science is about the ability to reproduce results.

And when those results have been reproduced, and confirmed and corrorborated by hundreds of papers over decades of research, yet a few die-hards still insist that the evidence is invalid and the conclusions are all wrong? This happens regularly in science.

Consensus doesn't provide 100% definitive answers or "settle" the question once and for all (arguably an impossible task); new evidence can and has changed mainstream views (though even evidence is rarely definitive either). But given that there will always be some inevitable disagreement in any complex field, how else would you suggest choosing the current best scientific opinion to be given for laymen and policymakers? If you wait until agreement is 100% total, nothing will happen - science results will get "stalled in committee". Consensus isn't picking votes out of a hat, it's the considered expert opinions of the large majority of practicing scientists, and as the saying goes it may not always be perfect but it's useful.

The satellite record pretty much agrees with Cruz, hasn't been any statistically significant warming (as in temperature) for over 18 years in the satellite data. USCRN hasn't shown any significant warming either; HADCRUT, GISTEMP, BEST and USHCN show some warming.

those really are not raw temperature data though. Those are all the products of analysis. You really are spewing in ignorance

Have you looked at Berkeley Earth? They have links to their source files here. They take raw data and apply their own set of adjustments that are different than the adjustments applied by NOAA or NASA.

A) http://berkeleyearth.org/ Your turn.

[D] Use all available data as-is and track trends only across the same groups of instruments. [E] Be an actual scientist and control your variables. If you want long-term studies you need long-term data so you need to make sure all measurements are taken reliably and in the same way from the same type of device, if possible.

If you want to be called a "climate scientist" you NEED to do E. If you want to be called anything other than a charlatan you need to at least do D.

Of course, Berkeley Earth did take all the available raw data, automatically detected discontinuities (i.e. unexplainable jumps, especially if they conflict with overlapping neighbouring records), automatically cut series there, and then automatically realigned and reassembled all the snippets, in essentially the same way we do DNA reconstructions from fragmented DNA. And their result is indistinguishable from the more conventional reconstructions. The fact that several independent groups using at least two very different mechanisms come to the same result is either evidence for the reliability of that result, or, of course, for a big global conspiracy of scientists. Of course, the Berkeley study was mostly financed by the Koch brothers...

[D] Use all available data as-is and track trends only across the same groups of instruments. [E] Be an actual scientist and control your variables. If you want long-term studies you need long-term data so you need to make sure all measurements are taken reliably and in the same way from the same type of device, if possible.

If you want to be called a "climate scientist" you NEED to do E. If you want to be called anything other than a charlatan you need to at least do D.

Of course, Berkeley Earth did take all the available raw data, automatically detected discontinuities (i.e. unexplainable jumps, especially if they conflict with overlapping neighbouring records), automatically cut series there, and then automatically realigned and reassembled all the snippets, in essentially the same way we do DNA reconstructions from fragmented DNA. And their result is indistinguishable from the more conventional reconstructions. The fact that several independent groups using at least two very different mechanisms come to the same result is either evidence for the reliability of that result, or, of course, for a big global conspiracy of scientists. Of course, the Berkeley study was mostly financed by the Koch brothers...

Last year Schmitt was 36% confident 2014's land based temperature end product was the hottest year ever. Hotter than 1934 and hotter than 1998.

Berleley Earth says "2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence." I can't find percentages for the other two but I imagine they're in the same ballpark.

What about Berkeley Earth? Their findings are much the same as NOAA and NASA as are all the other major world temperature series.

That's just the computer code for the ModelE. If you want data you're better off going to NOAA or perhaps the Berkeley Earth web sites. For Berkeley Earth start here. Their raw data is under the "Source Data" heading.

You're making me hungry. 7 or 8 inch brookies pan fried. Mmm mmm. Since I live in Oregon I'm no danger to your secret spot but we have some fine fishing out here too. Ever caught a steelhead?

I'm not a troll, I'm just confused by all of these global warming claims.

All politics aside, I've reached the point where I'm not sure who to believe anymore. On one hand I see stories such as TFA describing compelling AGW evidence that seems convincing, but on the other hand I see anti-AGW information that seems even more convincing. Could some objective person please take a look here and tell me who is actually lying?

When I read stories about data manipulation I get concerned. There appears to be clear evidence that the surface temperature records have been undergoing continuous retroactive modification. I understand that there may be some scientific rationale for making such modifications, but I don't have enough details to form a rational judgement. Were the error bars in the original data wrong? If not, then why do the adjustments exceed them by more than a factor of three (in many cases)? Why doesn't anyone point out that the unmodified data shows a completely different trend? Is the satellite temperature data wrong? If so, why, and why does it agree so well with the unmodified surface record? Why is it that none of the existing climate models produce accurate predictions based on historical data? Why should we trust those models to predict future trends when they can't reconcile historical data?

I know I'll probably get flamed for posting this, but I've decided to not post it anonymously anyway. Please leave the personal attacks out of your responses.

Thank you.

This paper from Berkeley Earth may shed some light on some of your concerns.

NASA, NOAA, Hadley/CRU, JMA, and the IPCC may also have some information regarding your areas of interest.

A little basic familiarity with statistics and thermodynamics will probably come in handy.

There are many good resources on the web for learning about statistics and thermo.

If you want to make a rational decision, it might require a substantial amount of time and effort on your part. You might need access to a technical library, if you have to go into a deep dive. Best of luck in your studies.

At best it's an "unadjusted" aggregate of adjusted, manipulated, and otherwise tampered-with raw data.
Each sensor has its own different "corrections", "adjustments", reasons for exclusion, etc.

http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
Open up Monthly Climatic Data of the World TAVG, for example.

Look at the characterization files and look at how many missing values there are. In many cases there are more missing values than included values, with no reason given for the missing values.
Look at all the data where they know the sensor fucking moved.
Look at how noisy the recordings are for any given sensor.

Look at the data itself, not some digested and abused shit from some group with an agenda. Go read the raw data and think, Slashdot.

Check out the Berkeley Earth project. An accomplished scientist assembled a team of others with impressive credentials and did the hard work of examining all the raw data.

http://berkeleyearth.org/

I won't spoil the surprise by revealing their conclusions. Go see for yourself :-)

Isn't that what the Berkeley Earth study tried to show http://berkeleyearth.org/about...

So I consider surface station data both temporally and spatially sparse, subjected to manipulations that are less than forthright and in ways that are mathematically dubious.

I don't get that you would think the adjustments to surface temperatures are less than forthright. They are well documented in the relevant papers about the adjustments.

Here is a NOAA page on their temperature data.

This page at Berkeley Earth describes their data set and some of the adjustments.

As far as the sparseness of some regions of the globe goes we don't care so much what the actual temperature is globally as much as we care about how it's changing over time. If the global temperature is derived in a consistent manner then it's probably a reasonable representation of temperature change.

Satellites because of their orbital inclination don't cover the polar regions at all and have to deal with issues of observation angle for near polar readings. Also they have to make adjustments for clouds and high elevations messing up their readings.

I don't disbelieve the satellite readings, I just don't see any good reason to trust them over the surface measurements, particularly over the time period since the satellites went up (1979) when the surface systems have also been improved to higher standards.

Calling it "net energy" doesn't feel right to me but whatever.

Those 100's of stations you are talking about are all on land which is only about 58 million miles^2 of the Earth's surface meaning each station is responsible for maybe 10,000 miles^2. There are also the sea surface measurements to take in to account. I've never been to clear about how they gather and collate sea surface measurements.

The question you have to ask is "Are the number of stations used adequate to derive a global temperature?" Evidence suggests it is. In particular I'd like to point out the Berkeley Earth project. They use all available data including over 39,000 unique stations yet their results aren't significantly different than NOAA, NASA and HADCRUT. So I have a hard time dinging NOAA for using a limited number of stations as long as it's statistically justified.

Not that I expect anyone to RTFA of course, but the article is actually a report on Berkeley Earth's study on the 1500-site national air-reporting system, and most of the figures given are for all of China. The only specific Beijing reference is the "40 packs a day" metaphor.

The Koch brothers tried that with Berkeley Earth and that didn't turn out so well (for them). The researchers at BE were pretty much unconnected with the climate science community and use their own methods of adjustment yet their results came out about the same as everyone else.

What are you talking about and do you have a source for what you're talking about?

Raw data is available and has been used. For example the Berkley Earth project re-analyzed the data starting with raw data and addressing concerns about heat islands, bad sources, etc.

http://berkeleyearth.org/about....

It's hard to trust anyone who's work is disseminated by the government or media today.

That's an assertion that's hard to challenge in the libertarian atmosphere of slashdot.

Research and reports are spun mercilessly for the gain of whoever needs it.

Indeed, it's always wise to track down the actual original data, and actually look at the data and see what we know, and how well we know it, rather than to trust the media interpretations.

It may not be scientist's fault but when you hear something like "the sky is falling" and then hear it refuted over and over, one starts to take things with a grain of salt.

The media does like to run doom and destruction stories-- they are more of a story than talking about things like "slow increase in temperature over a time scale of decades."

Take, for example, Global Cooling back in the 1970's.

OK, let's take it for an example. There was never a scientific consensus about global cooling in the 1970s. The American Meteorological Society did a review, trying to look for the origin of that. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... They summarize: "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

That was refuted with Global Warming in the 2000's

It was not really "refuted" per se, since it was never a scientific consensus in the first place.

and now it's simply Global Climate Change which seems to be a catch-all.

"Global Climate Change" was the term coined by the (first) Bush administration.

I don't deny GCC but I certainly want to see the data.

Excellent! That's the difference between deniers and skeptics: deniers will make any possible excuse to avoid looking at data. As it turns out, there are literally terabytes of data.

I will suggest starting with the Working Group 1 report, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, which summarizes what is known and how we know it. I'm most familiar with the 4th report (www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html), from 2007, but you might want to go directly to the more recent update, the 5th: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...

From there, dive into the data from whichever source you prefer-- I'd suggest possibly the Berkeley Earth data, which does an interesting job of comparing alternative hypotheses against the temperature data: http://berkeleyearth.org/summa...

What's the old adage that Regan grabbed from the Russian's; "Trust but Verify" I think was it.

Excellent. Much better than the denier's motto: "Never trust, never verify, never look at the facts."

It takes a lot of skill and experience to find the signal in the noise that is climate data.
Nevertheless it has been done, more than once.
Richard Muller was a true skeptic who rolled up his sleeves and got a team together to look at all the available data.
I won't spoil your delight by telling you what the conclusions were - see for yourself

In my opinion, to conduct proper science on climatological measurements, the raw measurements should be available to all, ...

Raw data is available on line. Most people are too lazy to look for it and even if they got it they wouldn't have a clue how to use it. The techniques used to make the adjustments are all out in the open too. Again, most people are too lazy or lack the technical knowledge to fully understand the adjustment methodology.

Complaining about lack of raw data or hidden adjustment methodology just shows you haven't taken the time to even investigate if those claims are founded on anything and are relying on someone else telling you that is true.

Here are the links for Berkeley Earth which is one of the more straightforward web sites to track down the data:

Berkeley Earth - About the data set

Berkeley Earth - Source files

In my opinion, to conduct proper science on climatological measurements, the raw measurements should be available to all, ...

Raw data is available on line. Most people are too lazy to look for it and even if they got it they wouldn't have a clue how to use it. The techniques used to make the adjustments are all out in the open too. Again, most people are too lazy or lack the technical knowledge to fully understand the adjustment methodology.

Complaining about lack of raw data or hidden adjustment methodology just shows you haven't taken the time to even investigate if those claims are founded on anything and are relying on someone else telling you that is true.

Here are the links for Berkeley Earth which is one of the more straightforward web sites to track down the data:

Berkeley Earth - About the data set

Berkeley Earth - Source files

Because global warming is a lie and the GOP are going to call out the dems on this.

No it's not, and youre an idiot for saying it is.

The overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists and not engaged in a global conspiracy for some god ony knows reason.

If global warming is only true because of secret data then it probably isn't true.

Then today is your lucky day.
Because There is no secret data.
It's a myth.

Here, let me google that for you .

Oh there it is, on the very first page:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/

Well then you're in luck!
Because it is that it is a MYTH that there even is any "secret data" in the first place.
There is no secret data.

Here, let me google that for you .

Oh there it is, on the very first page:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/

No, it is that it is a MYTH that there even is any "secret data" in the first place.
There is no secret data.

Here, let me google that for you .

Oh there it is, on the very first page:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/

The point is that it is a MYTH that there even is any "secret data" in the first place.

Here, let me google that for you .

Oh there it is, on the very first page:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/

Q: Why is it hard to get?
A: It's not. http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...

Q: Why are they adjusting data?
A: Because you need a common frame of reference. Say a measuring station was located in a park. Then a tree grew. The instrument went from being in full sun to being in full shade. So the readings from AT (After Tree) are not directly comparable to the readings from BT (Before Tree). Or say the instrument went from being in a park in a valley to now being on top of a hill, 1000 feet higher in elevation.

That's why adjustments are made, so that the readings all have a common point of reference.

Also note that WITHOUT the adjustments the data would show 20% MORE WARMING.
That's right, the adjustments to the raw data you are so worried about, actually reduce the amount of warming shown in the data record.

Now...you tell me, just what qualifications does an aerospace engineer have that would make his climate research as valid as an actual climate scientists?

Or do you think that before your operation to remove a brain tumor, you should double check your neurosurgeon's opinion with a geologist?

Then why is the raw data so hard to get?

Took me 1 google search for "raw temperature data", and a couple of clicks to get to this: http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc... containing raw data files, and link to their sources. Let us know what you find.

Ah... You apparently believe that climate scientists are "cooking" the numbers for nefarious reasons. The reasons and methods for the adjustments are all out in the open although it takes some scientific knowledge to understand them. Here is an explanation from Berkeley Earth about their data set and filtering. Everything they do there is out in the open.

So I await your scientifically based reasons not to accept the current adjusted temperature data sets.

It isnt because your bias makes you refuse to read sceptical scientific discussions that they dont exist.

Projection isn't a river in Egypt.

Stop reading media crap or rebuttals by propaganda sites and, just for your educational purposes, read some scientific sceptical sites and make up your own mind.

Or maybe read some original papers on the issue! Of course, if it doesn't agree with Anthony Watts, then you'll probably consider it propaganda. Bet you never read these.

They also gave money to the Berkeley Earth project. That one didn't quite turn out like they wanted.

They also tried to give money to the Florida State University Economics Department with some provisos:

First, the curriculum it funded must align with the libertarian, deregulatory economic philosophy of Charles Koch. Second, the Charles Koch Foundation would at least partially control which faculty members Florida State University hired. And third, Bruce Benson, a prominent libertarian economic theorist and Florida State University economics department chairman, must stay on another three years as department chairman — even though he told his wife he’d step down in 2009 after one three-year term.

So much for academic freedom.

Exactly this.

What's funny is that when Climate Change Skeptics, the Koch Brothers, funded their own study and planted an outspoken critic of climate change science as the director of the research, that skeptic ended up becoming a believer and published an Op-Ed in the NYT explaining how wrong he had been to not accept the science.

But somehow people still find a way to rationalize it all away as just the invention of a bunch of wealthy limousine-riding scientists keeping down those poor, defenseless oil companies.

Try Berkeley Earth. The source files for their analysis are here. The description of their dataset is here where they say they used raw data wherever possible and describe the filtering they did.

Try Berkeley Earth. The source files for their analysis are here. The description of their dataset is here where they say they used raw data wherever possible and describe the filtering they did.

Sadly not true. The fashion for some scientists to make names for themselves by producing misleading headlines for their supposed evidence has yet to fizzle.

Was 2014 the warmest it has ever been globally? No.

The satellite records (either one) show no special warmth for 2014 and the BEST record shows no statistical significance to the claim that 2014 was the hottest. Why? Because the tiny increase was well within the error bars of the mean temperature statistic

(The report can be found at http://static.berkeleyearth.or...)

Your argument is misleading. It is true that the question "which was the hottest year since recording in 1860?" Has three possible answers within the uncertainties, 2014, 2010 and 2005. But to the question "which was the hottest decade since recording in 1860?" has a clear answer: the last one. Of course there will be year-to-year fluctuations. But to look at the plot on page 3 and say "oh global warming has stopped just now" is wishful thinking. Also look at the "Ocean Surface Averages", page 5.