Actual Weather Station Data from Rural Weather Stations

[exchemist]

So you think data changes over time?

Er, well, you get more data points, obviously. So the data set self-evidently does change with time. And the models get better as they are refined.

So a person that bangs on about 15 yr old data presented by an unqualified, long-dead person, which may have been cherry-picked to serve an agenda, is not going to get anyone terribly motivated to dig into it.

And as there is, from your feeble list of supposedly ostracised scientists, zero evidence of any conspiracy to frighten climatologists into accepting a party line, I think we can take what they have to say seriously.

 

[sun rise]

There is nothing wrong with the data.

What the Stations Say What The Stations Say by Listed here are a set of historical temperature graphs from a large selection of mostly non-urban weather stations in both hemispheres. This data originated with the NASA Goddard Institute (GISS) in the USA and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England.

There is something wrong with the lemmings who accept all the propaganda the left puts out.

Note that serious scientists who reached different conclusions have been systematically driven out of the universities.

I'm not going to try to argue with someone who puts politics ahead of science.

There is something wrong with the lemmings who accept all the propaganda the right puts out.

 

[KW]

Er, well, you get more data points, obviously. So the data set self-evidently does change with time. And the models get better as they are refined.

So a person that bangs on about 15 yr old data presented by an unqualified, long-dead person, which may have been cherry-picked to serve an agenda, is not going to get anyone terribly motivated to dig into it.

And as there is, from your feeble list of supposedly ostracised scientists, zero evidence of any conspiracy to frighten climatologists into accepting a party line, I think we can take what they have to say seriously.

Feel free to disprove the data I posted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All I provided is actual weather station data.

Yes, someone is in denial.

Yes, recognizing ones failing is the first step to correcting them. You do realize that there are only a handful of such stations. Far less than I can count on the fingers of one hand.

Satellites on the other hand can measure temperatures all across Antarctica and they do not agree with your cherry picked source:

NASA - Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Feel free to disprove the data I posted.

I just did.

 

[KW]

Er, well, you get more data points, obviously. So the data set self-evidently does change with time. And the models get better as they are refined.

So a person that bangs on about 15 yr old data presented by an unqualified, long-dead person, which may have been cherry-picked to serve an agenda, is not going to get anyone terribly motivated to dig into it.

And as there is, from your feeble list of supposedly ostracised scientists, zero evidence of any conspiracy to frighten climatologists into accepting a party line, I think we can take what they have to say seriously.

It’s weather station data. New data points would mean manipulation.

You don’t like facts I guess. These data points will never change though.

 

[exchemist]

Feel free to disprove the data I posted.

Nope. As I've pointed out more than once already, nobody is going to be bothered to waste time on this dubious set of old data.

It's like when you encounter some nutter on the street corner, insisting you listen to him. We all make judgements, all the time about who to bother with and who to ignore. If we didn't do that, we would be constantly distracted by rubbish. Nobody is obliged to give every nutter the time of day.

In this case, you offer me a set of data put out years ago by some now dead unqualified schoolteacher, and which seems not to have troubled the people who spend their lives working to understand these things. It's fairly obvious that whatever conclusions this guy drew from the data are wrong. Whether it was because the data is wrong, or cherry-picked, or falsified, or whether it's faulty reasoning on his part in interpreting it, I neither know nor particularly care. This non-entity is simply not worth the effort of examining.

If he had been a leading light of a rival school of thought on the subject, that would be different. It might then be interesting to understand the thinking behind the alternative view. But a random unqualified crank? Forget it.

 

[KW]

Nope. As I've pointed out more ran once already, nobody is going to be bothered to waste time on this dubious set of old data.

It's like when you encounter some nutter on the street corner, insisting you listen to him. We all make judgements, all the time about who to bother with and who to ignore. If we didn't do that, we would be constantly distracted by rubbish. Nobody is obliged to give every nutter the time of day.

In this case, you offer me a set of data put out years ago by some now dead unqualified schoolteacher, and which seems not to have troubled the people who spend their lives working to understand these things. It's fairly obvious that whatever conclusions this guy drew from the data are wrong. Whether it was because the data is wrong, or cherry-picked, or falsified, or whether it's faulty reasoning on his part in interpreting it, I neither know nor particularly care. This non-entity is simply not worth the effort of examining.

If he had been a leading light of a rival school of thought on the subject, that would be different. It might then be interesting to understand the thinking behind the alternative view. But a random unqualified crank? Forget it.

You can’t change weather data points.

You can hide though.

 

[exchemist]

It’s weather station data. New data points would mean manipulation.

You don’t like facts I guess. These data points will never change though.

I like facts, but I like complete sets of facts, presented by sources I trust. Otherwise I'd be spending my time chasing stories about little green men in the National Enquirer.

 

[exchemist]

You can’t change weather data points.

You can hide though.

Yes, I dodge the nutter on the street corner. That's because I have better things to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s weather station data. New data points would mean manipulation.

You don’t like facts I guess. These data points will never change though.

I found a better source of data.

 

[KW]

Yes, I dodge the nutter on the street corner. That's because I have better things to do.

You are evading the point because you have no choice.

 

[KW]

I found a better source of data.

Sure

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like facts, but I like complete sets of facts, presented by sources I trust. Otherwise I'd be spending my time chasing stories about little green men in the National Enquirer.

Odd isn't it how he does not go to what would be the original source of the data. But I know why he doesn't. If he did then he could not deny much more detailed data from the same source.

 

[KW]

I like facts, but I like complete sets of facts, presented by sources I trust. Otherwise I'd be spending my time chasing stories about little green men in the National Enquirer.

But the facts aren’t going anywhere.

Move along.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure

I know. More spots sampled means more accurate data. You used a bogus source. Why didn't you find a valid one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But the facts aren’t going anywhere.

Move along.

Cherry picked data from a biased source does not count as "facts".

 

[Father Heathen]

Oh no, more conspiracy stuff. First evolution, now this! Geez.

On another note, is there anything that you don't view through a left vs. right prism?

I'm surprised conservatives haven't politicized icecream flavors, yet.

 

[KW]

I know. More spots sampled means more accurate data. You used a bogus source. Why didn't you find a valid one?

The sources are listed. You don’t like the data. Got it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm surprised conservatives haven't politicized icecream flavors, yet.

"Why do we need to? There are only three flavors: Vanilla, chocolate and strawberry."