Obama Mocks Skeptics

[John Reece]

Obama mocks GOP global warming skeptics and says they 'pretend' they 'can't read' – but ignores new claims that the US has been COOLING since the 1930s

The president spoke to a partisan audience of environmental activists on Wednesday night in Washington

He claimed GOP lawmakers believe global warming is real but won't admit it because they're afraid of 'a bunch fringe elements' in their own party

'They ducked the question and said "Hey, I'm not a scientist",' Obama joked

Obama ignored new evidence that American scientists have been altering climate data for years

The US Historical Climatology Network has been adjusting its records by replacing temperatures with data fabricated by computer models

[TimelessTheist]

Obama mocks GOP global warming skeptics and says they 'pretend' they 'can't read' – but ignores new claims that the US has been COOLING since the 1930s

The president spoke to a partisan audience of environmental activists on Wednesday night in Washington

He claimed GOP lawmakers believe global warming is real but won't admit it because they're afraid of 'a bunch fringe elements' in their own party

'They ducked the question and said "Hey, I'm not a scientist",' Obama joked

Obama ignored new evidence that American scientists have been altering climate data for years

The US Historical Climatology Network has been adjusting its records by replacing temperatures with data fabricated by computer models

Barry-boy probably shouldn't be calling 'other' people stupid.

[Juvenal]

The Daily Fail?

*sigh*

Dear John,

While I'm not sure TWeb allows linking to a website that features photos of half-naked women, I'm entirely sure it's not a source you should cite in support of skeptics of climate science.

For instance, there's a claim here of "new" evidence that raw temperature data has been "quietly" adjusted. New? Quietly? There were thousand-post threads on the pre-crash TWeb examining those adjustments years ago, citing any number of journal articles on the rationale and methodology of those adjustments.

Here's an example of the need for these adjustments, looking specifically at the largest, TOBS — the time of observation bias.

This is a real phenomenom that occurs when temperature measurements are made near the hottest part of the day, in the early afternoon, as was typical at a large number of monitoring stations. High-low thermometers were in use. After the measurement was recorded, the thermometers would be shaken down to clear the measurements. Naturally enough, the thermometers would then bounce back to the current temperature. If the temperature after the shake-down that afternoon was higher than the high temperature the following day, that afternoon's temperature would be recorded for the following day as well, a double-hit so to speak, artificially increasing the temperature record for that location.

That's an error in the raw data. It requires adjustments to the historical data, which have been made, accomplished according to models readily examinable in the literature, and changes in measurement protocol, which have also been made, years ago, with appropriate communications.

As ever, Jesse

[seer]

That's an error in the raw data. It requires adjustments to the historical data, which have been made, accomplished according to models readily examinable in the literature, and changes in measurement protocol, which have also been made, years ago, with appropriate communications.

As ever, Jesse

Really? So where were they saying "years ago" that the 1930s was the hottest decade of the last century in the US? And another question Lao, there was a warming trend from the 1910 to 1940. The IPCC does not blame that on man, so the question is what caused that if not man?

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...5-ae3951197d03

[John Reece]

Update re Latter Half of the OP

On ‘denying’ Hockey Sticks, USHCN data, and all that – part 2

Posted on June 26, 2014

by Anthony Watts

In part one of this essay which you can see here, I got quite a lot of feedback on both sides of the climate debate. Some people thought that I was spot on with criticisms while others thought I had sold my soul to the devil of climate change. It is an interesting life when I am accused of being in cahoots with both “big oil” and “big climate” at the same time. That aside, in this part of the essay I am going to focus on areas of agreement and disagreement and propose a solution.

In part one of the essay we focus on the methodology that was used that created a hockey stick style graph illustrating missing data. Due to the missing data causing a faulty spike at the end, Steve McIntyre commented, suggesting that it was more like the Marcott hockey stick than it was like Mann’s:

....

[John Reece]

See series of multiple updates here.

[Epoetker]

The Daily Fail?

Best investigative reporting in the world.

That's an error in the raw data. It requires adjustments to the historical data, which have been made, accomplished according to models readily examinable in the literature, and changes in measurement protocol, which have also been made, years ago, with appropriate communications.

Ha ha ha, no, it requires throwing out either the data, or the models. Nobody gets away with "adjusting historical data" without extremely good justification, and the thermometers that behave in this double-hitting way sound like you set them up with results in mind, and are now desperately trying to polish this turd.

It's time to execute Mann and Jones for fraud and end all so-called "climate science" until your stubborn, unrepentant, and dishonest generation is all dead.