Global warming continues as temperatures rise, study finds

Actual, for real, professor from the University of Guelph, Ross McKitrick, looked into the history of how such data have been managed.

Then he looked at what these guys did. He came to the conclusion - "their new assumptions -not new observations - are what introduced the warming trend at the end of their data set."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/a ... june-2015/

Fudge anyone?

This came out a couple days before the press release. Still applies, only moreso?

And yet, this study agrees with the facts that so many years and months have been the warmest on record - including the magical 1998 that people like to say there has been no warming since.

with nuts

You've said a couple of times that you agree the planet is warming. And yet whenever anyone posts any evidence of that, you're off to WUWT for your professional rebuttal. deniers. sheesh.

Haven't posted it in a while, but it looks like it's time for the graph.

You've said a couple of times that you agree the planet is warming. And yet whenever anyone posts any evidence of that, you're off to WUWT for your professional rebuttal. deniers. sheesh.

Haven't posted it in a while, but it looks like it's time for the graph.



But no matter how many times you post it, and no matter scary it's been manipulated to look it still only says 1 degree of warming over a century or so. And on this side of the debate we still say, "so what?"

Although that may change for you guys now.Apparently it is now OK to openly and dramatically simply imagine old years becoming cooler and recent years becoming warmer. It will then become true...amongst a small group at least. Perhaps you can make that graph say 2 degrees soon.

This isn't science. The external group of scientists not influenced by government climate pressure will have to notice. Satellite temperature records will remain the same and even more noticeably diverge from land surface records. And yes skeptics will point at the pre-purposed altering of data and scratch their heads.

The groups doing this are making a mistake here. They are going to lose even more credibility.

They're fudging the numbers so they can openly lie at the upcoming climate conference. It may work there, but the long term effect won't help their argument. Obama will never pass a climate treaty through the House and Senate when there's this to point at.

Is that your professional opinion or the one from youtube?

That particular statement is not opinion. It's a fact of the graph. It does only show 1 degree of warming over a century or so. And I and others do say, "so what?"

I do have an opinion though. Why? Are you saying you don't?

That 1 degree of warming over a century does not matter much is not just my opinion. It's shared by the side you appear to favor. The one that actually does make a claim of exclusive right to think of itself as "the science."

Show me how 1 degree of warming can melt Greenland or Antarctic ice, for example. You can't. Not even the scientists of the side you favor make the claim it can. I degree of warming per century will not cause a crisis.

Think of a degree of warming in the perspective of weather outside your door. Not much, right? How quick can it happen? Now think of that globally over a century. Still scared?

Again.........thanks for your scientific opinion. Keep them coming.

I wonder where that guy is who likes to say it's the skeptic side of the climate debate that has to rely on personal attack to make a point. I'd like to hear that one again. That would be good for a smile.

Not a valid comparison. One degree increase in worldwide average is not the same as one degree temperature change locally. And the change isn't the problem, the rate of accelerating change is. Next century it won't be one degree, it could be 2 to 4. Then who knows the century after that.

Too fast for life to adapt to that change.

It's not supposed to be scary. It's a temperature graph based on the instrumental record. It is what it is.



See what I mean? One moment you say the temperature has gone up 1 degree in a century, and in the very next pararaph you imply the data is all fudged. You argument, at its very core, is internally inconsistent. If the data are unreliable then the only conlusion you can draw is that we know nothing about past, present or future temperatures. That is the only logical concusion you can draw.



Government climate pressure? Who do you think put the satellites in orbit?

You would be correct. In fact "I wonder" why yours don't?

Freemasons are running the country!