Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Sundowner]

why exactly would you remove 2009?

"Hide the decline"?

Sun

[MORAY37]

first let me say we have kept this conversation away from politics and thats why its still open......... lets keep it that way

now on to my original thoughts:

so what did you use for your "base period begin" line? and what would make you assume that its the correct base period to be using? just because the "accepted" base line is 1951-1980 or whatever does not make this correct instead merely "accepted" in the circles who need it for their conclusions

so I will simply go off what you used and assume your baseline is correct (though I doubt it)...... you came to a .23F cooling trend...... then you go on to say you find a warming trend if you remove 2009 from consideration......

why exactly would you remove 2009? did it not happen? does it not meet with desired conclusions? instead of removing 2009 lets remove 2006 and see what the trend becomes...... or maybe 2006 and 1998........

its this cherry picking of data that has given us all of these FALSE charts and alarmists theories to begin with

you can show all the charts you want but none of them contain any shred of accurate data.... it has all been cherry picked..... much like removing 2009 from consideration

this is why the number of reading stations has been greatly reduced around the world..... and amazingly only the stations in cooler regions are the ones eliminated......

for instance in Missouri..... there are now only 3 stations used when determining the temperatures for the entire state....... St Louis, Springfield, and Columbia.......... I can tell you with absolute certainty that the temperatures in northwestern MO are no where near the temperatures in St Louis......... nor are the temperatures in the bootheel...... yet the temperature in St Louis is used to determine the average for them both hundreds of miles away in rural areas....... the St Louis station btw is at Lambert Airport ...... which is above even the temperatures for locations just a few miles away 365 days a year....... so this must be the average temperature for the region?

hogwash

I removed 2009 to determine the singular effect of that one year.  For no other reason.  Like I said, your point is a falsehood, and is based on "shifting baselines".  Yes, the addition of year 2009 shows a cooling trend for the entire decade, this year was cold in our 1.7% of the world.  And only for this decade.  When compared to the whole of the record, it still shows a trend up.

Your baseline has been shifted.  

As for Sundowner's post....
One year (actually, one WINTER) doesn't negate the previous 120.  I also removed winter 2006 as an outlier in the baseline graph.  Winter 2006 was the warmest on record in the continental United States, and I felt that it could skew the base trend up.

I don't care for your accusation sir.  

Perhaps you wish to explain to me how you would statistically analyze the data so that it isn't manipulated by extremes?  

[MORAY37]

DP

[MORAY37]

for instance in Missouri..... there are now only 3 stations used when determining the temperatures for the entire state....... St Louis, Springfield, and Columbia.......... I can tell you with absolute certainty that the temperatures in northwestern MO are no where near the temperatures in St Louis......... nor are the temperatures in the bootheel...... yet the temperature in St Louis is used to determine the average for them both hundreds of miles away in rural areas....... the St Louis station btw is at Lambert Airport ...... which is above even the temperatures for locations just a few miles away 365 days a year....... so this must be the average temperature for the region?

hogwash

WRONG.  There are 682 NCDC stations in Missouri.  Please cite where you got your information.

Station List
682 station(s) found with State matching MO.

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov

[CAP1]

NOTthing should be removed, added, or modified.

[RTHolmes]

what if the dataset has an entry that recorded 1000deg at one of the stations? data gathering is not a perfect science, so there are methods to reduce the effects of errors and anomalies (outliers).

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_statistics

[MORAY37]

NOTthing should be removed, added, or modified.

CAP, outliers are always removed.  It is basic statistical analysis.

[E25280]

WRONG.  There are 682 NCDC stations in Missouri.  Please cite where you got your information.

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov

All you have to do is go back to your own post on Jan 23.  A portion of what you quoted said . . .

"Data Details

To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from three sources: weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world; satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer program, which is available for public download from the GISS website. The program calculates trends in temperature anomalies — not absolute temperatures — but changes relative to the average temperature for the same month during the period of 1951-1980."

If they are only using 1000 stations to get their data, they are obviously NOT using all 682 weather stations in Missouri for their climate predictions.  Instead, they are hand picking a few stations from which to extrapolate all their data.

[Penguin]

massaging the information doesn't negate the claim..this is very very true.

 what id DOES do, however, is cast serious doubt on the validity of anything at all put forth by those that did it. when it comes right down to it, massaging it, is lieing.
 there may be some in those groups that didn't lie, massage any info, or do anything wrong.....but they are also guilty now, by association.

First part right, second part TOTALLY wrong.  Your argument is a fallacy.

Here's a simpler example of where you went wrong;

A crosses the street, and gets crushed
B is friends with A, and tells C to cross the street
Therefore, C will be also crushed

B is friends, and therefore associated with A.  Does this mean that B can't be right over whether the car will crush C or not?  No, that assertion has no logical base.  Guilt by association only works in the courtroom, we can sue the scientists, we can even jail them.  This however, doesn't mean anything toward the truth or falsehood of AGW.

Not only that, but you are simply lying at this point, how can those groups be guilty if they did nothing.  The priniciple of guilty until proven innocent must be applied, or otherwise no scientist could be trusted.  Another thing, not to say that Moray is doing this, but;

There have been biologists (Moray's job), who have commited crimes
That doesn't mean that Moray is a criminal.

-Penguin

[DREDger]

Read a good one today, the summit at Copenhagen has beed dubed, 'hopenhagen' 

[CAP1]

First part right, second part TOTALLY wrong.  Your argument is a fallacy.

Here's a simpler example of where you went wrong;

A crosses the street, and gets crushed
B is friends with A, and tells C to cross the street
Therefore, C will be also crushed

B is friends, and therefore associated with A.  Does this mean that B can't be right over whether the car will crush C or not?  No, that assertion has no logical base.  Guilt by association only works in the courtroom, we can sue the scientists, we can even jail them.  This however, doesn't mean anything toward the truth or falsehood of AGW.

Not only that, but you are simply lying at this point, how can those groups be guilty if they did nothing.  The priniciple of guilty until proven innocent must be applied, or otherwise no scientist could be trusted.  Another thing, not to say that Moray is doing this, but;

There have been biologists (Moray's job), who have commited crimes
That doesn't mean that Moray is a criminal.

-Penguin

no...the second part is true.

if you hang around with liars, then it will be assumed by most, that you are a liar yourself. or it will be assumed that you condone the particular group lying, which also means that you more than likely do.

btw, i'm not arguing.

[MORAY37]

There have been biologists (Moray's job), who have commited crimes
That doesn't mean that Moray is a criminal.

-Penguin

I stole a candy bar when I was 5. 

[Penguin]

I stole a candy bar when I was 5. 

 

Oooh, someone is getting a timeout 

no...the second part is true.

if you hang around with liars, then it will be assumed by most, that you are a liar yourself. or it will be assumed that you condone the particular group lying, which also means that you more than likely do.

btw, i'm not arguing.

Blue= flat out lying

Next, that isn't what you said.  What you said was that they were guilty by association.  Guilty (Apart from my mom's ideas, anyway) means that you actually did something wrong.  You have shifted your position.  If you are saying that this is your brand new and in response to query argument, you are correct.  I certainly would hope that you aren't doing this again.

-Penguin    

[CAP1]

 

Oooh, someone is getting a timeout  

Blue= flat out lying

Next, that isn't what you said.  What you said was that they were guilty by association.  Guilty (Apart from my mom's ideas, anyway) means that you actually did something wrong.  You have shifted your position.  If you are saying that this is your brand new and in response to query argument, you are correct.  I certainly would hope that you aren't doing this again.

-Penguin    

me? doing it again?  

you need to stop with the personal attacks. i am not arguing with anyone here, but rather i am attempting to discuss the topics at hand.
 i try to do this respectfully, as moray has noted, but you, sir, make it very difficult.

 by guilty by association i meant that if one is in a group of liars, and knows that group is lying, then they themselves are guilty of lying.

 look at it another way.

 if someone murders your neighbor, and i'm standing right there, watching this happen, but do nothing.....does that not make me guilty by association? i would think so.

 what i was talking about was the same principle.

 or even another example.

 my neighbor has 2 kids....both teens. i trust her daughter to look after my mother when she's staying up here. why? because of the people her daughter hangs out with.
 i do not trust her son, and will not allow him in my house. why? because of the people he hangs out with.

 so......should a scientist be a member of group "A", and 2 or 3 members of said group are lying, massaging/changing numbers, etc, and said scientist knows of this, then he also is guilty. unless he either outs them, or upon finding out, leaves the group.

 it really is quite simple. if you're as young as you say you are(i'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt there), you may not understand this yet.
 if you're in your teens, you should though.

[Vulcan]

CAP, outliers are always removed.  It is basic statistical analysis.

Only when you have already decided what you want the stats to read.