This response ignores the truth of the matter. Either there was a hiatus or there wasn’t. Either the historic temperatures are massaged or they aren’t. In both cases the correct answer appears to be yes.
Some facts are knowable, some are not. That NASA/NOAA has repeatedly adjusted the temperature records is not denied by anyone. It is explained, not denied. As for the hiatus, that too was explained rather than denied, at least up to the point where the adjustments made it disappear.
I note that you are now saying “adjusted”, which is neutral, whereas I said “fudged”, which implies unjustified adjustments meant to serve a pre-ordained purpose. Are you sure that once my back is turned your or someone else who disputes global warming will not go back to calling the adjustments fraudulent?LeafByNiggle:
Some facts are knowable, some are not. That NASA/NOAA has repeatedly adjusted the temperature records is not denied by anyone.
No, it just vanished all on its own, at least as a continuing thing, and not an historical oddity.
I do think that the adjustments made by NASA to make the hiatus disappear were fudged. I also don’t believe it is mere coincidence that virtually every adjustment has been made in the same direction: to make the past colder and the present warmer. Finally, the adjustments made by the CRU were so obviously random even their own people couldn’t explain them and there is no possibility of re-creating them. One surrenders all claim to reasonableness if all of this is accepted without question.
wattsupwiththat.com
Therefore my citation of that claim as one of the oft-repeated claims in line with your meme on propaganda was appropriate. Remember, simplistic memes may sound clever, but they cut both ways.LeafByNiggle:
I do think that the adjustments made by NASA to make the hiatus disappear were fudged.
From your link:
The criteria of homogeneity and equivalence of data sets are not subtleties but would be obvious to any scientists, peer reviewer, or most anyone with a merest understanding of statistics. An error of this sort would be quickly discovered and quite a gaffe.
why present a false dichotomy?
The “simplistic meme” that temperature data is fudged is based on sounder evidence than the “simplistic meme” that man is responsible for the bulk of global warming.
Perhaps, but the main thrust of the article was about the creation of the average daily temperature in the first place. As is rather apparent, it is not accurately computed by averaging the daily high with the daily low. Which later gets adjusted later anyway.
Then you should also comment on Ender’s false dichotomy on which mine was based:LeafByNiggle:
why present a false dichotomy?
The answer can be we are causing modest warming, which is actually what the data shows.
The answer could be there was a brief pause in warming, which is now history, as it is no longer paused, and there could have been adjustments to the temperature record that are either justified by science or are inconsequential to the overall conclusions of global warming.
That’s not the simplistic meme I meant. Let me remind you of your meme:LeafByNiggle:
The “simplistic meme” that temperature data is fudged…
“Ender” said:
wattsupwiththat.com
And once again, you ignore the scientific discussion. It was in the rest of the article, which I suspect you didn’t even read since you gave no comment on the logic of the argument.
I bailed at the huge number of red flags in the first paragraph. If someone wants to put forth a scientific argument, that person should not surround the scientific argument with name-calling, hyperbole, and baseless political accusations. Sorry, but to misquote Dorothy Boyd, “You lost me at ‘hello’”.LeafByNiggle:
And once again, you ignore the scientific discussion. It was in the rest of the article, which I suspect you didn’t even read since you gave no comment on the logic of the argument.
This is information that is surely not common knowledge. I can’t imagine why.
www.theatlantic.com