New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate Change Data

Oh, I know exactly who "she" is. I'm testing you to see if you know because I have a suspicion that you didn't bother looking her up. The thing is, I did look her up. And I tried finding the study claimed in the article and I can't find it. You asked me if I had an objection to "her" analysis, but the thing is I can't really comment on something that I could not find or possibly doesn't even exist. I am genuinely asking if you know where to find it?

And accusing me of spin is like the pot calling the kettle black. I actually looked up the details of that article even going so far as finding the screenshots in question and even the raw data so that I could verify things for myself. And guess what...the article is wrong or, at the very least, incredibly misleading. But, don't take my word it. Look it up for yourself.

 

Playing games and spinning and as usual not addressing even one statement I made.

Congratulations, you analyzed the raw data and found her analysis or at least her conclusions were wrong.

Submit it to the crooks, academic community; they will carry you on their hands because you have done what the whole community couldn't.

Sell your bridge to them, they are in the business of selling bridges , not me

 

'Inconvenient' - Al Gore's Home Devours 34 Times More Electricity Than Average U.S. Household

Gore’s hypocritical home energy use and “do as I say not as I do” lifestyle has plunged to embarrassing new depths.

 

No links.

Updated URL on the Phil Jones eMails below.

https://web.archive.org/web/2009112...nto-UEA-global-warming-data-manipulation.html

Climategate academic Professor Phil Jones admits he 'lost track' of vital data

Professor Phil Jones, the academic at the centre of the “climategate” scandal, has admitted he had difficulty “keeping track” of vital data used to back up global warming claims.

You need to go back through your "articles" you posted and see if any of their data was based on Jones work at East Anglia to have any credibility. So make us a list from your links where they got their data from or we'll just have to assume it's junk.

 

Are you asking me to google these for you?

By the way, full disclosure, there is a reason why I didn't hotlink them. I wanted you to google them because it forces you to do the research. You'll get a much better context that way. And it's easy it to do...it takes no time at all.

Sorry, I wasn't implying that you needed to update the link. I found the article on my own. It was pretty easy to find based on context clues.

Shame on him. But, like I said, I already don't agree with some of his decisions so I'm not going to defend him if that's what you're thinking. But, let's think about the implications of this for a moment. What effect do you think his disorganization and general apathy to record keeping had on the final result? Do you think it biased his research? Do you think he intentionally made global warming appear to be less magnified than what it is? I mean, we already know he's skeptical of some AGW claims (by his own admission) and that he wanted to "hide" evidence that favors AGW (from the email). Or do you think he intentionally made global warming look worse? What do you think?

Come on now. Do you really think I haven't read those articles? How do you think I (and everyone else for that matter) know what Jones was talking about? And no, those "articles" do not reference work from Jones. Their bibliographies are included at the bottom of the paper...ya know...like every other academic publication.

Once again...

Who is Mike? What is "Mike's Nature trick"?

Who is Keith? What is Keith's position on the "decline"?

What is significant about 1961?

If you don't know the answers or just don't want to answer for whatever reason then just say so. I'll be happy to tell you. I was just hoping that you'd you look stuff up yourself and not take my word for it. I've learned that it usually works better to give people clues and let them find the answer on their own. That way there's no chance that I misrepresented something. Afterall, I make mistakes too

 

it's your assertion, prove it or don't. It's your credibility not mine.

 

The study is a peer-review, but I can't find any info online about whether or not this study has been reviewed or by whom.

Who peer-reviewed it, and can you link to it?

 

Whoa, now hang on a minute. I'm not that one that accused people of being con men. I'm just trying to encourage you research this stuff before accusing someone of fraud. And right now my suspicion is that you don't understand what they are even talking about. You probably saw a blog or news article written by a non-expert who also didn't understand the context of those emails and leaped to a conclusion. The thing is, multiple independent reviews of climategate came to the same conclusion that there was no fraud involved. Anyway, here are the links.

Mann, et al. Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries
Briffa, et al. Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?
Briffa, et al. Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes
Briffa, et al. Low frequency temperature variations from a northern tree ring density network.
D'Arrigo, et al. On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes

I'll give you one final clue. If you're reading this post the identities of Mike and Keith should be obvious.

 

I'm certain that this doesn't disprove 90-100% of climate scientists and studies.

 

Nobody interviewed 90-100% of the scientists.

Think!

 

It's in the OP.

 

I don't care what you think.

The statute of limitations ran out or he jolly well might be spending time in jail.

Jones comes clean in BBC interview

 

Oh, yes. I glossed over it on my first skim.

 

Maybe. I don't particularly care for him so it'd be no sweat of my back.

 

How many "scientist" used his skewed data to formulate their opinion? The CRU was the major source of temperature data in Europe.

In the U.S. it's the NOAA......

It's a shame what they are trying to pass off as legitimate science. 69% of their data comes from stations the NOAA itself classifys as poor or worst. Why should we believe something promoted with such flawed data. Nobody's contesting the climate changes, it has likely;y too many times to count in the last 4 billion years.

She sums it up pretty well doesn't she.

 

https://judithcurry.com/2017/08/05/week-in-review-science-and-policy-edition-6/#more-23248

 

Why fight reducing pollution? It amazes me.

And to the OP, the article got refuted a post or two in. This article was self-published. There is no credibility.

 

We must believe your vision of reality, don't we?

In spite of your life goal to pervert reality at any chance you have.

In your perversion you are convinced you are capable of doing nothing more than trolling.

My belief is that you are capable of doing more than that.

But I accept that it is just my personal belief and I have no intention to impose it on you in any way or measure.

 

You really think 90-100% of all scientists were directly interviewed on a particular question? BAHAHAHAHAHAH! Don't be so gullible!