James Shaw

There is much man can do to reduce the pollution that adds to perturbation of the delicate equilibrium that makes earth a livable planet. Denial is not one of the options.
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-record.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

HEART Loc: God's Country - COLORADO

No one denies "climate" - it's always there. When politicizers ramp up their noise, the real world turns a deaf ear.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

I love it! Yet another "Science" article about Global Warming telling us that the Earth is "setting a temperature record for the third straight year," and that "temperatures have blown past the previous record three years in a row." Nowhere in the entire article do they tell you what the actual overall temperature records are. Nowhere. You would think that this would be the single most important science information of all. But they never do that in these types of psuedo-scientific articles. All they give you are fluffy heat metaphors and some cherry picked individual spots on giant Earth where for instance, India had a single record hot day.

They never give you the overall temperature results because the increments are so microscopically small that nobody would be alarmed if they knew the truth. An honest graph of temperature measurement would show a nearly straight line across the X axis. When you actually look up temperature differences they claim to measure for each year, you'll find that they are splitting hairs of hundredths and thousandths of a degree. We do not even have thermometers that can measure such differences. The figures are arrived at by a type of statistical cheating that is not allowed in other scientific disciplines.

According to their own fudged data, there hasn't been any statistically significant Global Warming for the last 19 years, during which the majority of this Global Warming scare has been taking place.

James Shaw

The article shows data-points on a graph. The points were acquired through direct measurement, not innuendo, like your "fudged data" comment.

If you have information that the data shown in the article cited above were "fudged" then please show the candid world on which you base your statement. Otherwise I am left to believe you are just rambling, yet once again. What the data mean in the total scheme of things regarding global temperature change remains to be established.

You are blowing off the current data with generalized innuendo not facts. If you have hard data showing the data in the current post was "fudged" then let us have it, please. I think you tend to be specious and are being specious here. "You would think" is a remark that is attempting to lead the reader. Please, hard facts that the data presented above was "fudged."

James Shaw

Data points on the graphs are solid measurements. What they mean in the total scheme of climate "change" remains to be established, but data points are data points.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

The scientists at NOAA and GISS do not just report the raw temperature data and average it out. Instead, they "tweak" the data in places where they think it is inaccurate. While they try to use scientific principles to tweak their data, it is more of an art form and involves a lot of "educated guesses." With the micro temperature differences they are working with, this leaves open a huge scope of variability and opportunity for shenanigans in their final numbers. The historical temperature charts you see today are different than the ones they showed a few years ago, and these are different again from the ones shown many years ago, and so on... They are constantly revising the charts to fit their opinions, instead of the other way around. It just so happens that in pretty much all cases where the scientists have adjusted their data, they have adjusted it to show more warming recently and more cooling in the past. This is more than a huge coincidence.

Here is an article describing some of the "shenanigans" that have been uncovered. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Here is another site that gives some very clear graphics showing the formerly accepted historical temperature data from past years and how they morphed into much different graphs in later years.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/alterations-to-climate-data/

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

I've decided to create the climate change acceptors organization or CAO.
The CAO's mission is to get everyone together to party while our planet inevitably changes and to seek out the 3 bonafide climate change deniers that aren't made up by the climate change fanatics(CCF's) and convert them to our wicked ways of party hardy. We also would like to raise awareness of the climate change fanatics origin made up of Green Peace, The political branch of the IPCC and the left overs from the groups that helped tear down the Berlin wall.
In the event that the Sun Wobbles again and causes our planet to cool, no need for the CCF's to get there diapers in wad. The CAO will be there for you with lots booze while you search for another crisis and mission to follow for the betterment of our world. Until then Party Hardy.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Tell me it ain't so............I would have never guessed.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

I'm in!

James Shaw

Sorry, your rant does not address the data presented in the figure posted here. The data are real. If not real then will you show us where there is intentional fraud in the data or its posting? If not, then you are as fraudulent in your attempt to discredit others. I go with science and data not fraud. Again, if you can show us where there is intentional fraud in the figure and data I posted, well, then, go at it. I am all ears.

Otherwise, you are just another who attempts to discredit the data of others by innuendo.

James Shaw

"Pretty much in all cases?" If, not in all cases, then what is that which is not included in "pretty much all cases?" I go with good science. Your "pretty much" has no basis. All must be looked at. Not just NASA but data from scientists around the world.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

You apparently did not read, or did not believe the article I linked by Christopher Booker about the fiddling with temperature data. Here is a more detailed look at the fraudulent tampering with the temperature data by NASA and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/all-of-paraguays-temperature-record-has-been-tampered-with/

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I looked into the raw data. Yes last year was the warmest year on record. But that statement is very misleading, for the following reasons. It as warmer by 0.3 degrees C as such it's a virtually bogus number. Temperature measuring devices over the past 100 years have not been that reliable. Even today that number falls within the margin of error of measuring devices around the planet. So the claim that 2016 may be an accurate statement but it is still a decptive one. Lets assume that the 0.3 degree increase is accurate. It is not a prediction of future temperature. I do not believe that energy policy should change as a result of a temp. increase of 0.3 degrees.This is all separate from pollution which most certainly should be cleaned up. especially in those countrys which are the worst offenders

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Hi Bo. Where did you find that figure that says the temperature is up 0.3 degrees (assuming this is over the previous year's figure)? No matter if you were talking Fahrenheit or Centigrade, this would be Earth-shaking news that would alarm both Global Warming believers and Deniers as well! Are you sure you copied the figure correctly, or left out a decimal place?