Text 21059, 88 rader
Skriven 2015-02-08 12:39:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
Ärende: Re: Assumptive questions
================================
On 02-07-15, JANIS KRACHT said to BILL MCGARRITY:


JK>My favorite part of Tim's message though was this section:


FLASH!!!



Sunday 08 February 2015


The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever


New data shows that the 'vanishing"� of polar ice is not the result of runaway
global warming


The "vanishing" of polar ice (and the polar bears) has become a poster-child
for warmists. Photo: ALAMY


By  Christopher Booker


10:15PM GMT 07 Feb 2015


When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30
years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official
temperature records - on which the entire panic ultimately rested - were
systematically "adjusted"� to show the Earth as having warmed much more than
the actual data justified.


Two weeks ago, under the headline "How we are being tricked by flawed data on
global warming"�, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his
Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for
three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had
originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of
data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to
one that showed a marked warming.


(Question: If `global warming is so *real*....why "adjust" any data? ....Tim
Richardson)


This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by
expert observers around the world one that raises an ever larger question mark
over the entire official surface-temperature record.


Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American
weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same
suspicious one-way "adjustments"�.


(Question: If its real...why the need for "adjustments"?...Tim Richardson)


First these were made by the US government's Global Historical Climate Network
(GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records,
the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data
Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across
the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are
the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in
"global warming"�.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Which only raises one of the questions I've been posing in here for a couple
of weeks, now;


If its so `real'....why the need to `adjust' the data? Shouldn't real science
data stand on its own without need of `adjustment'?


Curious minds would like to know.

---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail  Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org  (1:123/140)